7616 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 11, 73 and 74

[MM Docket No. 99–25; FCC 00–19; RM

9208, 9242]

Creation of Low Power Radio Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document establishes

rules authorizing the operation of two

new classes of low power FM (LPFM)

radio stations. LP100 stations will

operate at a maximum power of 100

watts and LP10 stations at a maximum

power of 10 watts. The LPFM service

will provide opportunities for new

voices to be heard and will be

implemented in a manner that best

serves the public interest.

DATES: Effective April 17, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie

Barrie, (202) 418–2130, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau;

Engineering Contact: Keith Larson, (202)

418–2600, Mass Media Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Report

and Order (‘‘R&O’’), FCC 00–19,

adopted January 20, 2000; released

January 27, 2000. The full text of the

Commission’s R&O is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Dockets

Branch (Room TW–A306), 445 12 St.

SW, Washington, DC. The complete text

of this R&O may also be purchased from

the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services

(202) 857–3800, 1231 20th St., NW,

Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis of Report and Order

I. Introduction

1. With this Report & Order, we

authorize the licensing of two new

classes of FM radio stations—one

operating at a maximum power of 100

watts and one at a maximum power of

10 watts. Both types of stations, known

as low power FM stations (LPFM), will

be authorized in a manner that protects

existing FM service. They will be

operated on a noncommercial

educational basis by entities that do not

hold an attributable interest in any other

broadcast station or other media subject

to our ownership rules. Initially, only

entities located in the communities the

stations serve will be eligible to

participate in this service. Even once

this eligibility criterion is relaxed, we

will grant a significant selection

preference to locally-based applicants.

We believe that the LPFM service

authorized in this proceeding will

provide opportunities for new voices to

be heard and will ensure that we fulfill

our statutory obligation to authorize

facilities in a manner that best serves

the public interest.

2. In establishing this new service, we

are determined to preserve the integrity

and technical excellence of existing FM

radio service, and not to impede its

transition to a digital future. In this

regard, our own technical studies and

our review of the record persuade us

that 100-watt LPFM stations operating

without 3rd-adjacent channel separation

requirements will not result in

unacceptable new interference to the

service of existing FM stations.

Moreover, imposing 3rd-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. We will not, therefore, impose

3rd-adjacent channel separation

requirements. To avoid any possibility

of compromising existing service, given

the new nature of the LPFM service, we

will impose separation requirements for

low power with respect to full power

stations operating on co-, 1st- and 2ndadjacent and intermediate frequency (IF)

channels. We believe that the rules we

are adopting will maintain the integrity

of the FM band and preserve the

opportunity for a transition to a digital

radio service in the future, while

affording significant opportunities for

new radio service.

II. Issue Analysis

A. Goals

3. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) we adopted on January 28,

1999, (64 FR 7577, February 16, 1999)

responded to petitions for rule making

and related comments indicating

substantial interest in, and public

support for, increased citizens’ access to

the airwaves. In the year since we

issued the NPRM, proposing rules

authorizing the operation of new low

power FM radio stations, we have

received comments and letters from

thousands of individuals and groups

seeking licenses for new radio stations.

Many of these comments, which will be

discussed in greater detail below,

included comprehensive engineering

studies and valuable suggestions for

service rules. These comments—from

churches or other religious

organizations, students, labor unions,

community organizations and activists,

musicians, and other citizens—reflect a

broad interest in service from highly

local radio stations strongly grounded in

their communities. In authorizing this

new service today, we enhance locally

focused community-oriented radio

broadcasting.

4. Our goal in creating a new LPFM

service is to create a class of radio

stations designed to serve very localized

communities or underrepresented

groups within communities. To that

end, in the NPRM we proposed to

establish two classes of low power FM

radio service: a 1000-watt primary

service and a 100-watt secondary

service. We also sought comment on

whether to establish a secondary class of

stations operating between one and 10

watts. Commenters supporting low

power radio generally argued for the

creation of an LPFM service consisting

of 100 or 10 watt stations. Most

commenters did not support the

creation of 1000 watt stations, arguing

that the local aspect of LPFM service

could be diminished by the size of the

service area of such stations. Some

commenters opposing the institution of

1000 watt service argued that 1000 watt

stations present a greater interference

potential than 100 or 10 watt stations.

We also stated in the NPRM a hope that

the largest of the proposed LPFM

stations, at 1000 watts, could serve as a

proving ground and an ‘‘entry’’

opportunity for new entrants into the

full-power broadcasting industry. While

we continue to view this as a

worthwhile goal, we are persuaded by

commenters that establishment of a

1000 watt service would not best fulfill

our goals at the present time. Our

establishment of a low power radio

service consisting of two classes

operating at maximums of 100 watts and

10 watts will allow licensees to serve

their local communities, and will permit

a greater number of new stations to be

authorized, fostering a diversity of new

voices on the airwaves.

5. Another goal expressed in the

NPRM was that any new LPFM service

specifically include the voices of

community based schools, churches and

civic organizations. In the NPRM, we

raised the question of whether the

LPFM service should include both

commercial and noncommercial

licensees or whether it should be

entirely noncommercial. We also

proposed that any stations of one to 10

watts be exclusively noncommercial, as

we did not see commercial potential in

stations with such limited service areas.

Many of the commenters supporting

LPFM strongly supported the

establishment of an entirely

noncommercial service. We tentatively

concluded that auctions would be

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7617

required if mutually exclusive

applications for commercial LPFM

facilities were filed, but noted that

licenses for noncommercial educational

or public broadcast stations are

specifically exempted from auction by

section 309(j). Given the overwhelming

support for the establishment of a

noncommercial service, and the

tendency of auctions to skew the

allocation of licenses away from

noncommercial entities that are more

likely to serve underrepresented

sections of the community, we conclude

that eligibility for LPFM licenses should

be limited to noncommercial,

educational entities and public safety

entities.

6. Finally, in proposing the creation of

a new LPFM service, we made clear that

we will not compromise the integrity of

the FM spectrum. We are committed to

creating a low power FM radio service

only if it does not cause unacceptable

interference to existing radio service.

The NPRM proposed that current

restrictions on 3rd-adjacent channel

operations might be eliminated in order

to establish an LPFM service and also

sought comment as to whether 2ndadjacent channel separations are

necessary. The modification of our

existing rules concerning channel

separations has generated extensive

comment, as well as extensive

engineering studies. Our Office of

Engineering and Technology has

conducted its own engineering tests,

and has comprehensively reviewed the

studies submitted by commenters. The

rules adopted today reflect our wellconsidered conclusion that the

elimination of 3rd-adjacent channel

separation requirements for LPFM

stations will not cause unacceptable

levels of interference to existing radio

stations. We recognize that the

elimination of restrictions on both the

2nd-and 3rd-adjacent channels would

create many more opportunities for

community-based LPFM stations, but,

given the ambiguity in the record on

this issue and our commitment to

ensure that the new LPFM service does

not unacceptably interfere with existing

radio services or impede a digital future

for radio broadcasting, we must proceed

cautiously. Accordingly, we will impose

2nd-adjacent channel separation

requirements on LPFM stations.

B. Classes of Service

7. Background. In the NPRM, the

Commission proposed to authorize two

classes of LPFM stations: (1) an LP1000

class which would be for primary

stations operating with an effective

radiated power (ERP) of between 500

and 1,000 watts and with an antenna

height above average terrain (HAAT) up

to 60 meters, and (2) an LP100 class

which would be for stations operating

on a secondary basis with between 50

and 100 watts ERP and with antennas

up to 30 meters HAAT. We also sought

comment on a very low power

secondary LP10 service with an ERP

between one and 10 watts. For each

proposal, the Commission sought

comment on the power levels associated

with each class, the eligibility for such

stations and the effects that each class

may have on the full power radio

service.

8. Comments. LP1000. Generally

speaking, the proposal to authorize

LP1000 stations generated the most

controversy among the commenters. The

topic was one of the few areas that

generated opposition by both current

full service broadcasters and low power

radio proponents, although for different

reasons. Commenters connected to the

existing broadcast industry and the

Association of Federal Communications

Consulting Engineers (AFCCE)

expressed their concerns regarding the

large potential for interference posed by

such operations. Additionally, AFCCE,

as well as commenters that generally

support the LP1000 proposal, expressed

concerns that the service could preclude

other lower powered LPFM stations.

Most commenters supporting the

LP1000 proposal proposed to limit

LP1000 stations to rural areas or areas

where sufficient spectrum could be

found for both LP1000 and LP100

classes of service.

9. LP100. The proposal for LP100

stations generated the most positive

comments. Commenters generally felt

that LP100 stations would provide a

reasonable coverage area while

remaining small enough to continue

focusing on local needs. From an

engineering standpoint, various

commenters, stated that the LP100

proposal appears ‘‘reasonable’’ and the

proposed power range would allow the

use of equipment, such as exciters and

simple single bay antennas, that are

already available. Not all comments

were favorable, however. In general

most negative comments shared the

view stated by Disney that ‘‘[a]

secondary LP100 service is undesirable

for two reasons: first, because it would

be difficult to establish a procedural and

enforcement framework that would

adequately protect FM broadcasters

from interference; and second, because

LP100 stations would create only

marginal new radio listenership given

the overriding levels of interference they

would receive from full service

stations.’’

10. LP10. The Commission’s proposal

for an LP10 service operating with 10

watts or less elicited both highly

favorable support and vociferous

opposition. Most support for the

proposal came from individuals and

public interest groups. The comments in

favor of LP10 generally viewed such a

service as suitable for school campuses

and local community organizations that

wish to serve small areas and do not

have the resources to construct and

operate a higher-powered facility.

Furthermore, given what they saw as a

smaller potential for interference, these

groups considered LP10 as the best

option for crowded urban areas where

higher-powered facilities are not likely

to fit. On the other hand, most

comments opposing the LP10 proposal

came from broadcasters and individuals

concerned that the Commission would

not be able to enforce its rules against

the numerous LP10 stations and that

widespread interference would result.

11. Decision. We will not authorize

1000 watt stations. We will, however,

authorize LP100 and LP10 stations, in

two separate stages. First, we will

license LP100 stations. These stations

generally will provide coverage

appropriate to community needs and

interests expressed in the record in this

rule making. The Mass Media Bureau is

delegated authority to issue an initial

and subsequent public notices inviting

the filing of applications for LP100

stations on dates consistent with this

Order and processing requirements.

After a period of time sufficient to

process the initial LP100 applications,

the Mass Media Bureau is authorized to

open a filing window for applications

for LP10 stations, which can also serve

very localized community needs. We

adopt this sequential process in order to

provide the larger (100 watt) stations

with their greater service areas the first

opportunity to become established.

Given that some LP10 stations can be

sited where LP100 stations cannot, we

expect that opportunities will remain

for LP10 after the initial demand for

LP100 stations has been accommodated.

Additionally, our own resources will be

better spent first advancing service to

relatively greater areas.

12. However, the record, including

comments from both current

broadcasters and public interest groups

who were opposed to stations as large

as 1000 watts, convinces us that

licensing such a service is not in the

public interest. As argued by

commenters, 1000 watt stations may

pose a greater interference concern for

existing broadcasters and are not

necessary to meet the most pressing and

widespread demand for service

7618 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

expressed in the record. Moreover,

LP1000 stations could have a significant

preclusive effect on the licensing of

LP100 and LP10 stations. Yet, these

lower powered stations will permit

many more opportunities for

community-oriented service than would

1000-watt stations.

1. LP100 Service

13. LP100 stations will be authorized

to operate with maximum facilities

equivalent to 100 watts ERP at 30 meters

(100 feet) HAAT and minimum facilities

equivalent to 50 watts at 30 meters (100

feet). This would permit a maximum 1

mV/m contour (60 dBu) with a radius of

approximately 5.6 kilometers (3.5

miles), subject to the radio environment.

Depending on population density, such

a station could serve hundreds or

thousands of listeners. This service will

allow LPFM licensees to broadcast

affordably to communities of moderate

size and interest groups that are

geographically proximate, such as

ethnic, professional, industry and

student groups, and retirement

neighborhoods. Spectrum rights and

responsibilities for this service are

addressed below.

2. LP10 Service

14. LP10 stations will operate at

between one and 10 watts ERP and an

antenna height of up to 30 meters (100

feet) HAAT. Such stations will produce

a 60 dBu signal out to about 1.6 to 3.2

kilometers (1 to 2 miles) from the

antenna site. Such stations will fit in

some locations where LP100 stations

cannot, due to separation requirements,

and will provide groups with the

opportunity to operate stations that

reach smaller communities or groups

with a common interest. Spectrum

rights and responsibilities for this

service are addressed below.

C. Nature of Service and Licensees

1. Noncommercial Educational Service

15. Background. In proposing the

creation of a new LPFM service, the

Commission set forth its goals of

encouraging diverse voices on the

nation’s airwaves and creating

opportunities for new entrants in

broadcasting. We raised the question of

whether the service should be

noncommercial in nature. We noted that

while mutually exclusive commercial

broadcast applications are subject to

auction, certain noncommercial stations

are specifically exempted from our

auction authority.

16. Comments. Of those commenters

supporting LPFM, an overwhelming

majority endorsed establishing it as a

noncommercial service. Commenters

stressed the diversity that would be

created by a noncommercial service,

and argued that noncommercial radio is

the best way to serve local communities.

Other commenters, however, argued

that low-power FM licensees should be

available to both noncommercial and

commercial licensees.

17. Decision. We will establish LPFM

as a noncommercial educational service.

Our goals in establishing this new

service are to create opportunities for

new voices on the air waves and to

allow local groups, including schools,

churches and other community-based

organizations, to provide programming

responsive to local community needs

and interests. We believe that a

noncommercial service is more likely to

fulfill this role effectively than a

commercial service. Commercial

broadcast stations, by their very nature,

have commercial incentives to

maximize audience size in order to

improve their ratings and thereby

increase their advertising revenues. We

are concerned that these commercial

incentives could frustrate achievement

of our goal in establishing this service:

to foster a program service responsive to

the needs and interests of small local

community groups, particularly

specialized community needs that have

not been well served by commercial

broadcast stations. We believe that

noncommercial licensees, which are not

subject to commercial imperatives to

maximize audience size, are more likely

than commercial licensees to serve

small, local groups with particular

shared needs and interests, such as

linguistic and cultural minorities or

groups with shared civic or educational

interests that may now be underserved

by advertiser-supported commercial

radio and higher powered

noncommercial radio stations. We note

that commenters addressing this issue

favored establishing LPFM as a

noncommercial service by a substantial

margin, though some have argued that a

commercial service could provide

ownership opportunities for new

entrants. While we have considered the

entrepreneurial opportunities that low

power radio stations might create, we

nonetheless conclude that a

noncommercial service would best serve

the Commission’s goals of bringing

additional diversity to radio

broadcasting and serving local

community needs in a focused manner.

18. Establishing LPFM as a

noncommercial service will have the

added benefit of giving us additional

flexibility to assign licenses for this

service in a manner that is most likely

to place them in the hands of local

community groups that are in the best

position to serve local community

needs. As a general matter, where

mutually exclusive applications are

filed for initial commercial licenses or

construction permits, the licenses or

permits must be awarded by

competitive bidding pursuant to 47

U.S.C. 309(j). Licenses for

noncommercial educational broadcast

stations, as described in section 397(6)

of the Act, however, are not subject to

competitive bidding. Accordingly,

having decided to establish LPFM as a

noncommercial service, we will require

that LPFM licensees comply with the

eligibility requirements of section 397(6)

of the Act.

19. Section 397(6) of the Act defines

‘‘noncommercial educational broadcast

station’’ as a station which:

(A) Under the rules and regulations of

the Commission in effect on the

effective date of this paragraph, is

eligible to be licensed by the

Commission as a noncommercial

educational radio or television

broadcast station and which is owned

and operated by a public agency or

nonprofit private foundation,

corporation, or association; or

(B) Is owned and operated by a

municipality and which transmits only

noncommercial programs for education

purposes. Since the statute incorporates

by reference the Commission’s

noncommercial eligibility rules, we

must look to those rules in determining

noncommercial eligibility under section

397(6) of the Act. The Commission’s

rules limit eligibility for noncommercial

radio stations to nonprofit educational

organizations that show that the station

will be used ‘‘for the advancement of an

educational program.’’ In applying this

rule, the Commission has required that

applicants be (a) a government or public

educational agency, board or institution,

or (b) a private, nonprofit educational

organization, or (c) a nonprofit entity

with a demonstrated educational

purpose. We require that an applicant

described in (a) or (b) have an

educational program and demonstrate

how its programming will be used for

the advancement of that program. An

applicant applying as (c) must

specifically show (i) that it is in fact a

nonprofit educational organization, (ii)

that it has an educational objective, and

(iii) how its programming will further

that objective.

20. The requirement that NCE

licensees provide programming that

advances an educational objective may

be satisfied by a variety of programs,

including but not limited to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7619

‘‘instructional programs, programming

selected by students, bible study,

cultural programming, in-depth news

coverage, and children’s programs such

as Sesame Street that entertain as they

teach.’’ We have also stated that ‘‘in

order to qualify as an educational

station, it is not necessary that the

proposed programming be exclusively

educational.’’ Given the latitude that

entities have under our rules to qualify

as NCEs, we do not believe that limiting

eligibility for LPFM licenses to NCEs

will unduly limit the range of groups

that will be eligible to apply for LPFM

licenses or the services that they can

provide.

2. Public Safety and Transportation

21. Background. One appropriate use

of LPFM stations is use by public safety

or transportation organizations.

Although the NPRM did not specifically

raise this issue, a number of

commenters proposed it.

22. Comments. We received a number

of comments from public safety and

transportation entities arguing that they

would use LPFM stations to serve

communities’ need for public safety and

traffic information.

23. Decision. The public safety and

transportation commenters propose

important uses for low power FM

stations. LPFM stations could be used

by state or local governments or other

not-for-profit entities to provide traffic,

weather, and other public safety

information to local communities. The

use of LPFM stations for public safety

purposes will further our goal of better

serving local communities. Certain of

these entities already hold TIS or other

broadcast licenses. We emphasize,

however, that we will not exempt these

licenses from the cross-ownership

restrictions, described below, and will

therefore require TIS licensees or other

public safety or transportation licensees,

to return their existing licenses upon the

initiation of LPFM service. Thus, in

addition to noncommercial, educational

organizations, associations or entities as

described above, public safety radio

services used by state or local

governments or not-for-profit

organizations, as defined in 47 U.S.C.

309(j)(2)(A), will be eligible for LPFM

licenses.

D. Eligibility and Ownership

24. In order to further our diversity

goals and foster local, community-based

service, we will not allow any

broadcaster or other media entity

subject to our ownership rules to control

or to hold an attributable ownership

interest in an LPFM station or enter

broadcast related operating agreements

with an LPFM licensee. Additionally, to

foster the local nature of LPFM service,

we are limiting eligibility to local

entities during the first two years LPFM

licenses are available. We are also

adopting a significant local ownership

preference to be applied in resolving

mutually exclusive applications. After

local entities have had an opportunity to

apply for construction permits, we will

permit applications by qualified nonlocal applicants. After the first two

years, we will permit multiple

ownership of LPFM stations nationally,

but only up to a maximum of 10 LPFM

stations over a phased-in period.

25. Throughout this discussion we

use the term ‘‘community’’ in a manner

different from our traditional use of the

term. Here, we use the term to refer to

the very small area and population

group that will make up the potential

service area and audience of an LPFM

station. Given the very small nature of

LPFM service contours and prospective

audiences, we do not expect LPFM

service areas to be coincident with

traditional political boundaries that we

use to define communities in other

contexts, such as our allocations

process.

1. Cross-Ownership Restrictions

26. Background. In the NPRM, the

Commission tentatively concluded that

strict cross-ownership restrictions

would be appropriate for low power

radio. We proposed to prohibit any

person or entity with an attributable

interest in a broadcast station from

having an ownership interest in any

LPFM station in any market. We sought

comment on whether the proposed strict

cross-ownership restrictions would

unnecessarily prevent individuals and

entities with valuable broadcast

experience from contributing to the

success of the LPFM service. We also

asked for comment on whether

broadcasters with an attributable

interest in broadcasting stations should

be allowed to establish an LPFM station

in a community where they do not have

an attributable broadcast interest. We

proposed to prohibit joint sales

agreements, time brokerage agreements,

local marketing or management

agreements, and similar arrangements

between full power broadcasters and

low power radio entities. We also

sought comment on whether the crossownership restriction should be

extended to prevent common ownership

of LPFM stations with cable systems,

newspapers, or other mass media.

27. Comments. Several commercial

broadcasters, educational broadcasters

and individuals propose that cross

ownership be allowed. Some

commenters propose that current

broadcasters be allowed to apply for

LPFM stations, but that they should be

required to give up their current station

license prior to initiating operations at

the LPFM station. Others propose that

full service station owners not be

barred, so long as the LPFM station is

in another market.

28. Most commenters, however,

oppose cross-ownership of full-service

stations and LPFM stations. Most

commenters also support the

Commission’s proposal to prohibit

arrangements between full service

broadcasters and LPFM entities, such as

joint sales and time brokerage

agreements.

29. Decision. We will prohibit

common ownership of LPFM and any

other broadcast station, including

translators and low power television

stations, as well as other media subject

to our ownership rules. See: 47 CFR

73.3555, 76.501.) Thus, no broadcaster

or other media entity, or any party with

an attributable interest in them, can

hold any attributable ownership interest

in an LPFM licensee. One of the most

important purposes of establishing this

service is to afford small, communitybased organizations an opportunity to

communicate over the airwaves and

thus expand diversity of ownership—a

purpose inconsistent with common

ownership of LPFM stations and

existing broadcast facilities or other

media interests. Moreover, many of the

commenters’ remarks favoring cross

ownership are directed to the

establishment of the proposed LP1000

service. These arguments regarding

efficiencies and economies and

competitive standing for stations that

might compete commercially, however,

are less applicable to noncommercial

educational LP100 and LP10 stations.

Similarly, our own expressed concern

that cross-ownership limits could retard

the development of low power radio by

excluding entities with broadcast

experience is less pressing in the

absence of commercial 1000 watt

stations. We conclude that our interest

in providing for new voices to speak to

the community, and providing a

medium for new speakers to gain

experience in the field, would be best

served by barring cross-ownership

between LPFM licensees and existing

broadcast owners and other media

entities. This prohibition is national and

absolute in nature, unlike our existing

cross-media ownership rules. Thus, for

example, a newspaper cannot have an

attributable interest in any LPFM

station, regardless of whether the

newspaper and LPFM station are colocated. We believe our interest in

7620 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

promoting diversity warrants such a

strict approach.

30. We have also decided to prohibit

operating agreements in any form,

including time brokerage agreements,

local marketing or management

agreements, and similar arrangements,

between full power broadcasters and

LPFM broadcasters, or between two or

more low power licensees. Many

commenters strongly oppose allowing

any form of operating agreement that

would dilute new ownership in the low

power service. We are concerned that

such agreements too readily could

undermine the strict cross-ownership

restriction adopted by allowing an

ineligible entity to program or manage

an LPFM station. We see no harm,

however, in permitting any existing

licensee to apply for an LPFM station on

the condition that it is otherwise

qualified and it represents that it will

divest its interest prior to

commencement of LPFM operations.

2. Requirement That Applicant Be

Community-Based

31. Background. In the NPRM, we

sought comment on whether to establish

a local residency requirement, although

we were not inclined, at that time, to do

so. We were concerned that a residency

requirement would limit the pool of

potential owners of low power stations

and would deny opportunity to

individuals and entities who resided in

a location where no frequency is

available, as there will not be low power

frequencies available in every

community. We also noted that we

expected in the case of LP100s and LP10

stations, in particular, that the very

nature of the stations would attract

primarily local or nearby residents. We

note that given our decision to restrict

eligibility to noncommercial

educational entities, the term

‘‘residency’’ is somewhat misleading.

The issue now is whether we should

limit applicants to entities based within

the local community they wish to serve

and, if so, how we should define

whether or not they are communitybased. Nonetheless, given that the

NPRM and comments are cast in terms

of residency, we will continue to use the

term, but do so in the organizational or

institutional sense noted here.

32. Comments. Most commenters

support a requirement that LPFM

licensees be locally based. They argue

that local residents are more likely to be

aware of issues of importance to the

local community, and to gear their

programming accordingly. On the other

hand, many commenters oppose the

imposition of a residency requirement.

Some argue that a local residency

requirement would be struck down

under the standards set forth by Bechtel

v. FCC. Some point out that a residency

requirement is incompatible with a fiveto ten-station national ownership cap.

33. Decision. We continue to be

concerned about the potentially

preclusive effect of a strict local

‘‘residency’’ requirement and do not

believe that local sources are the only

valuable sources of information and

service. Nonetheless, this service is

intended to respond to the highly local

interests that are not necessarily being

met by full-power stations. Furthermore,

since LPFM will be a noncommercial

educational service, we cannot rely on

commercial market forces and business

incentives to ensure that local needs are

fulfilled. Given the small coverage of

LPFM stations, and our intention that

the particular needs and interests of

these small areas be served, local

familiarity is more significant than it

might be for a station serving a larger

area and population. We thus conclude,

after consideration of the comments and

on further reflection, that the

disadvantages of imposing a

requirement that applicants be

community-based are outweighed by the

benefits to be gained by maximizing the

likelihood that LPFM stations are

operated by entities grounded in the

communities they serve. Accordingly,

for the initial and subsequent windows

opened within two years after the first

filing window for LPFM service has

been opened, all LPFM applicants must

be based within 10 miles of the station

they seek to operate. This means that

the applicant must be able to certify that

it or its local chapter or branch is

physically headquartered, has a campus,

or has 75 percent of its board members

residing within 10 miles of the reference

coordinates of the proposed transmitting

antenna. We chose the 10-mile distance

as proportionate to most stations’ likely

effective reach. We are concerned that a

larger distance, in many areas of the

country, could lead to ownership

outside the bounds of the station’s real

community and the people they will

actually serve. We are concerned that a

smaller area would too severely and

unduly restrict the opportunities

presented by LPFM. An organization

providing public safety radio services

will be considered community-based in

the area over which it has jurisdiction.

Beginning two years after the first

window for LPFM service has been

opened, non-local applicants will be

eligible to apply in subsequent windows

for those classes of stations pursuant to

public notices issued by the Mass Media

Bureau. By this approach, we intend to

make it more likely that local entities

will operate this service. If no local

entities come forward, however, we do

not want the available spectrum to go

unused.

34. We do not find convincing the

argument made by some commenters

that imposition of a local residency

eligibility requirement here would pose

the same legal problems as the

‘‘integration of ownership and

management’’ factor formerly employed

as a comparative criterion in the

commercial broadcast service. While

that comparative criterion was

overturned as arbitrary and capricious

in the Bechtel case, that case did not

invalidate a preference for locally based

applicants per se. Rather, it rejected a

preference for a particular form of

business organization—in which station

owners worked more than a certain

number of hours per week at their

station—that had not been shown to

provide superior service even though

the preference had been used for many

years. The preference for local licensees

here, in contrast, rests 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 believe that local

residence should carry particular weight

here because we envision LPFM as a

uniquely local service designed to serve

local community needs. We note that

while the court invalidated the

integration criterion in the Bechtel

decision, it recognized that an applicant

who is familiar with the community is

likely to be aware of its special needs.

35. Furthermore, we believe that local

roots are particularly important in a

noncommercial educational service like

LPFM. As noted above, we cannot rely

on commercial market forces to ensure

that LPFM licensees are responsive to

local needs because they will be

noncommercial entities providing

noncommercial program services.

Indeed, Congress and the Commission

have long recognized the unique role

played by local entities in providing

noncommercial educational

programming, and we have favored

local entities in providing other

noncommercial educational services.

36. Finally, we do not believe that our

preference for local applicants here

raises the concerns voiced by the court

in Bechtel. The court was concerned in

Bechtel that the integration preference

elevated quantitative factors—the

number of hours the station owners

promised to work at the station—over

arguably more important qualitative

factors such as broadcast experience and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7621

established local residence. In contrast,

the community-based requirement that

we adopt today does not rest on

quantitative factors and is not based on

promises of future conduct. Rather, we

are adopting a simple, straightforward

requirement that applicants be based in

the local community. In addition, a

primary concern underlying the court’s

decision was that there was no

obligation for a successful applicant in

the commercial broadcast service to

adhere to its integration proposal, and

there was no evidence indicating the

extent to which licensees had done so

in the past. In contrast, LPFM licenses

will not be transferable, so we can be

assured that a local entity that is

awarded the license will continue to

operate the station. For these reasons,

we do not believe that the communitybased requirement that we adopt today

suffers from the problems identified by

the court in the Bechtel decision.

3. National Ownership Limits

37. Background. In the NPRM, we also

sought comment on the issue of a

national multiple ownership cap. In

particular, we asked whether a limit of

five or ten stations nationally would

provide a reasonable opportunity to

attain efficiencies of operation while

preserving the availability of the

stations to a wide range of applicants

and their essentially local character.

38. Comments. Comments on this

issue are wide-ranging in their opinions.

Some groups favor an absolute

nationwide one-station-per-owner limit,

arguing that a one-station-per-entity cap

would distribute the low power stations

as widely as possible and create the

opportunity for the most diverse

ownership. Some commenters support a

less strict national cap, arguing that

some national cap will promote greater

diversity in the service, but that a oneper-owner limit is excessively

restrictive. Several commenters agree

with the Commission’s suggested range

of five to ten stations, nationally.

Finally, some groups oppose any type of

national cap.

39. Decision. We are adopting a staged

rule, which will initially foster diversity

by disallowing any common ownership

of LPFM stations, but eventually permit

the accumulation of additional stations

where local applicants fail to come

forward. This will increase the service

available to the public and permit the

efficiencies that can be achieved by

multiple ownership where there is not

an immediate local interest in operating

a station. To achieve this, we will

require that for the first two years of

LPFM service, any one entity may own

only one LPFM station. The two yearlong period will begin on the day that

the first LP100 filing window opens for

applications. After the first two years, to

bring into use whatever low power

stations remain available but unapplied

for, we will allow one entity to own up

to five stations nationally, and after the

first three years of this service, we will

allow an entity to own up to ten stations

nationwide.

40. In addition to ensuring the fullest

use of LPFM spectrum in the long term,

we believe that this tiered system will

balance the interests of local entities,

which we expect to be the first entrants

in this service, and national

noncommercial educational entities,

which may be interested in additional

local outlets to increase their reach and

to achieve certain efficiencies of

operation. We note the attribution

exception for national or other large

entities with local community-based

chapters, discussed below in the

attribution section, which will allow the

local chapters to apply as individual

entities and thus not be constrained by

this national ownership provision.

41. In the NPRM, we tentatively

concluded that Section 202 of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the

1996 Act) eliminating national multiple

ownership restrictions for existing full

power commercial stations does not

apply to a new broadcast service. Given

our decision to limit LPFM to

noncommercial educational

broadcasters, section 202 clearly does

not apply to LPFM and we need not

discuss this issue further.

4. Local Ownership Limits

42. Background. In the NPRM, we

proposed to prohibit entities from

owning more than one LPFM station in

the same community. We were

concerned that it would be difficult to

achieve wide new entry into the

broadcasting market and enhance

diversity if more than one low power

station in an area were under common

control. At the same time, we sought

comment on whether such a restriction

would inappropriately deny to LPFM

licensees the efficiencies achievable

through multiple ownership, and on

what cooperative arrangements might

facilitate the development of LPFM

service without unduly diluting its

benefits. We also sought comment on

the appropriate definition of ‘‘market’’

or ‘‘community’’ for the purposes of

LPFM service.

43. Comments. Many commenters

agree strongly with the Commission’s

proposal that LPFM ownership should

be limited to one station per

community. They argue that allowing

multiple ownership in a local area

would reduce the number and diminish

the diversity of new entrants. Most

contend that the demand for stations

from local owners will be plentiful and

that there will be no need to allow

outside owners to own low power

stations. A few commenters address the

issue of the definition of ‘‘community’’

for the purpose of determining the

limitations of local ownership but none

offered specific alternative definitions.

Some commenters expressed concern

that the current Commission definition

of a ‘‘community’’ is ambiguous and

therefore subject to inequitable

application.

44. Decision. We will restrict local

ownership and allow one entity to own

only one LPFM station in a

‘‘community.’’ We concur with those

commenters who expressed concern

over the potential for diminution of

diversity in ownership if one entity

were allowed to control more than one

station in their community. The

comments opposing the restriction seem

directed to and more appropriate in the

context of the proposed 1000 watt

service, which could have operated

commercially. The primary benefit of

local multiple ownership, increased

efficiency, is less compelling with

respect to LP100 and LP10

noncommercial educational stations,

particularly as compared to the benefit

to a community of multiple communitybased voices. As noted, we use the term

community in this Report and Order to

refer to the very small population group

that makes up a station’s potential

audience. For purposes of the local

ownership limits, we will require that

no entity own or have an attributable

interest in two or more LPFM stations

located within 7 miles of each other.

That is, to comply with our local

ownership limits, the antennas of

commonly-owned stations must be

separated by at least seven miles. We

believe seven miles is appropriate given

the approximately 3.5 mile signal reach

of LP100 stations. Although the signal

reach of LP10 stations is smaller, for the

sake of simplicity we will apply the

seven-mile ownership separation to

both classes of service.

45. In the NPRM we noted that section

202 of the 1996 Act permitted

significant local multiple ownership of

full power commercial radio stations

but questioned whether this standard

would apply to a new low power

service. Our decision here, however, to

limit LPFM stations to noncommercial

educational service renders this

question moot. As discussed above

regarding the national multiple

ownership issue, section 202, by its

7622 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

terms, does not apply to noncommercial

stations.

46. We note that the attribution

exception for local chapters of national

entities, discussed in the next section,

will allow local chapters to apply as

individual entities and thus avoid the

bar that the national ownership rules

would otherwise impose.

5. Attribution

47. Background. Given the

significance we have accorded the

ownership of LPFM stations, the strict

cross-and multiple-ownership rules and

the community-based eligibility and

selection criteria we are adopting,

determining who ‘‘owns’’ or constitutes

a low power radio applicant or licensee

is critically important. In the NPRM, we

sought comment on what interests or

relationships should be attributable in

this regard.

48. Comments. Comments on

attribution vary widely. Some

commenters express concern that if the

existing attribution rules were applied

to these stations, some entities with

large national organizations and small

chapters would be unable to hold

multiple licenses even though they

maintain a local presence and would

provide community-oriented

programming. Other commenters

propose that attribution rules be waived

in the case of accredited educational

institutions, so that they can hold a full

power station and also an LPFM station.

49. Decision. We will apply rules

similar to the existing commercial

attribution rules to determine a

licensee’s compliance with the

ownership limits set forth above.

Because many of the entities that will

hold LPFM licenses will be non-stock

corporations (or other non-stock

entities), we will attribute the interests

of the applicant, its parents, its

subsidiaries, their officers and members

of their governing boards. If an entity

that holds an LPFM license does have

stock, then the existing attribution rules

will apply and voting stock interest of

5% or more will be attributable unless

the investor is passive in nature, in

which case voting stock interests of 20%

or more will be attributable. Partners

and non-insulated limited partners are

attributable, as are officers and

directors. Non-voting stock and debt are

not attributable unless they satisfy the

‘‘equity-debt-plus’’ standards set forth in

our recent attribution order. Thus, for

example, if a full-power broadcaster in

a community were to invest in an LPFM

licensee in that same community and

the investment accounted for more than

33% of the LPFM’s total capitalization,

the investment would be attributable

and would violate the cross-ownership

ban discussed above. Similarly, if a

director of the same full power

broadcaster were to act as an officer of

the LPFM, the director would be

attributed with both stations and would

violate the ban. Consistent with the

existing commercial attribution rules,

however, an exception will apply to

certain officers and directors of the

parent of an LPFM applicant or licensee.

Such an officer or director may hold

otherwise attributable interests in a

broadcast licensee or other media entity

subject to our ownership rules without

making the LPFM applicant ineligible,

provided the duties and responsibilities

of the officer or director are wholly

unrelated to the LPFM station and the

officer or director recuses himself or

herself from consideration of any

matters affecting the LPFM station. This

exception will avoid making ineligible

entities that will serve the purposes of

this service well, such as universities or

schools, which may have large and

diverse board membership, while

protecting against control of an LPFM

licensee by ineligible media owners. For

the same reason, in the LPFM context

we will extend the exception to officers

and directors of the LPFM applicant or

licensee itself, if that entity is a

multifaceted organization, such as a

university, and the duties and

responsibilities of the officer or director

are wholly unrelated to the LPFM

station and the officer or director

recuses himself or herself from

consideration of any matters affecting

the LPFM station. We emphasize that

these exceptions are narrow in scope.

An individual holding an attributable

media interest may not act as an officer

of the LPFM station, nor function in any

other attributable role.

50. We will, moreover, include an

attribution exception for local chapters

of national or other large organizations.

In the event that a local chapter can

demonstrate that it: (1) Is separately

incorporated, and (2) has a distinct local

presence and mission, the local chapter

can apply for a license in its own right

and the national entity’s ‘‘ownership’’

will not be attributed to it. In order to

meet this standard, the local entity must

be able to show a significant

membership within the community, as

well as a local purpose that can be

distinguished from its national purpose.

For example, the general purpose of

raising awareness of the toxic waste

problem in the United States would not

suffice, but raising awareness of the

toxic waste problem in particular local

areas would meet the local purpose

standard.

6. General Character Qualifications and

Unlicensed Broadcasters

51. Background. In the NPRM, we

generally proposed to apply the same

standards for character qualification

requirements to all LPFM broadcasters

as we do to full power broadcasters. The

Commission asked if commenters saw

any reason to distinguish between full

and low power radio licensees for this

purpose. In addition, we sought

comment on whether to disqualify

unlicensed broadcasters who once

violated or who still are violating

Commission rules. We sought comment

on whether the Commission should

adopt a middle ground and accept

applications from parties who have

broadcast illegally, but who either (1)

promptly ceased operation when

advised by the Commission to do so, or

(2) voluntarily ceased operation within

ten days of the publication of the NPRM

in the Federal Register.

52. Comments. Many individuals

insist that without radio ‘‘pirates,’’

LPFM would not have been created.

Others, such as Amherst and UCC, et al.,

support the middle ground set forth in

the NPRM, saying that it is most fair to

the interests of future low power

broadcasters and to the public. Many

commenters believe that anyone who

has operated illegally should not be

eligible for a license. Some object to

restricting parties with an interest in a

broadcast station from owning an LPFM

station, but allowing ‘‘pirates’’ to own

them.

53. Decision. We have decided, as we

proposed, to apply the same character

qualification requirements to low power

station licensees as we currently apply

to full power licensees. The

Commission’s character policy is

underpinned by our interest in a

licensee’s truthfulness and reliability.

We have a critical need to ascertain

whether a licensee will in the future be

forthright in its dealings with the

Commission and operate its station in a

manner consistent with the

requirements of the Communications

Act and the Commission’s rules and

policies. No commenter showed a

reason to distinguish between full and

low power broadcasters on this basis,

and we do not believe one exists.

54. The most significant specific

question that character concerns raise in

the context of this proceeding, as

discussed in the NPRM, is how past

illegal broadcast operations reflect on

that entity’s proclivity ‘‘to deal

truthfully with the Commission and to

comply with our rules and policies,’’

and thus on its basic qualifications to

hold a license. We are persuaded to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7623

adopt our original proposal and accept

a low power applicant who, if it at some

time broadcast illegally, certifies, under

penalty of perjury, that: (1) It voluntarily

ceased engaging in the unlicensed

operation of any station no later than

February 26, 1999, without specific

direction to terminate by the FCC; or (2)

it ceased engaging in the unlicensed

operation of any facility within 24 hours

of being advised by the Commission to

do so. Applicants will be required to

make such certifications as part of their

applications for an LPFM station. Such

certifications will be made with respect

to the applicant as well as all parties to

the application (i.e., any party with an

attributable interest in the applicant).

Submission of false or misleading

certifications will subject the applicant

to enforcement action including fines,

revocation of license and criminal

penalties.

55. Contrary to some commenters

arguments, this rule does not

unconstitutionally infringe on the First

Amendment rights of unlicensed

broadcasters. Disqualification under this

rule is based solely on lack of

compliance with statutory and

regulatory requirements. All parties

should note, however, that as licensed

broadcasters, ignorance, whatever its

cause, is not considered an excuse for

violation, and full compliance with our

rules will be required. Moreover, as

implied by the provisions of the NPRM,

the illegality of unauthorized

broadcasting must now be presumed to

be well-known, and any unlicensed

broadcast operation occurring more than

10 days after the NPRM was issued will

make the applicant ineligible for low

power, full power, or any other kind of

license and will be subject to fines,

seizure of their equipment, and criminal

penalties.

E. Technical Rules

1. Spectrum for Low Power Radio

56. Background. In the NPRM, the

Commission stated that it did not intend

to allocate new spectrum for a low

power radio broadcasting service. The

utilization of new spectrum would

require listeners to purchase new

equipment to receive the service, which

would significantly delay the benefits of

the service to the public. We proposed

to authorize low power radio stations

within the FM band only. This

determination was based partly on the

extent of congestion within the AM

band, with numerous existing stations

experiencing significant interference.

Furthermore, we recognized that low

power AM stations were capable of

causing significantly higher levels of

interference as a result of AM signal

propagation characteristics. With regard

to the use of the FM band, we

concluded that the large number of

existing FM stations precluded us from

designating any specific frequencies for

LPFM service, as no such channels are

available throughout the country. Thus

we sought comment on whether we

should allow LPFM stations to operate

throughout the entire band or restrict

the reserved portion of the FM band

(Channels 201–220) for noncommercial

educational (NCE) stations. We also

contemplated that low power radio

stations would desire to use auxiliary

broadcast frequencies, where

available—for example, for studio-totransmitter links and transmissions of

remote broadcasts—and sought

comment in this regard.

57. Comments. No commenters

specifically supported the allocation of

new spectrum for the proposed service.

Many commenters agreed that existing

interference within the AM band and

the relative complexity of AM facilities

should preclude consideration of a low

power AM service. Some commenters,

however, argue that an AM low power

station should be an option in areas

where the FM spectrum is too crowded

to permit new stations. With regard to

the FM band, most commenters support

the view that the reserved band should

continue to be reserved for NCE use

only. However, several other

commenters are particularly concerned

that the introduction of numerous new

stations in the reserved band would

potentially increase interference to

existing stations, especially in areas

beyond their protected contours. At the

same time, other commenters expressed

the desire to allow NCE low power

stations throughout the FM band.

58. Decision. We will authorize low

power radio stations throughout the FM

band, where the stations will fit, but not

in the AM band. Although FM band

crowding may preclude or limit LPFM

opportunities in certain markets, we are

not persuaded that the creation of an

AM low power radio service is

warranted. We note that we are adopting

minimum distance separations between

LPFM and full-service stations based

upon the assumption that full service

stations operate with maximum height

and power for their class. Therefore, an

LPFM station would generally provide

greater protection to stations operating

in the reserved band than that afforded

to them by other full service stations, for

which station facilities are spaced more

closely on the basis of the contour

protection methodology. Because LPFM

stations will be licensed throughout the

FM band, they will not be concentrated

in the reserved portion of the FM

spectrum. We note, however, that LPFM

stations, regardless of their location in

the FM band, are reserved to qualified

NCEs. We will apply the same

interference protection and other

technical standards for LPFM operations

in the reserved and nonreserved bands.

This will facilitate application

processing and uniform LPFM technical

operating requirements.

59. In view of their relatively smaller

service areas, we believe that most

LPFM stations will co-locate program

origination and transmission facilities.

As a result, these stations would not

require studio-to-transmitter links (STL)

between these facilities. However, we

will not foreclose LPFM operators the

use of broadcast auxiliary frequencies

used by full-service radio stations for

this purpose. LPFM stations may also

desire to air programming relayed from

a remote location, such as an athletic

event, or in connection with news

gathering. Generally, we will permit

entities authorized to operate LPFM

stations to use remote pickup

frequencies and radio broadcast

auxiliary frequencies in the manner in

which full-service stations use these

frequencies, pursuant to the technical

rules and procedures given in subparts

D and E of part 74 of our rules.

However, we will require that LPFM

operations on auxiliary frequencies be

secondary to that of full-service

broadcast stations and other primary

users, given the congestion of frequency

use in some locales. We note that TV

auxiliary frequencies are licensed to low

power TV stations on this basis. An

entity seeking to operate an LPFM

station may apply for broadcast

auxiliary license only after it has been

authorized to construct the LPFM

station.

2. LPFM Spectrum Rights and

Responsibilities

60. Background. In the NPRM, we

raised issues regarding the spectrum

priority of the contemplated classes of

LPFM service. We recognized that our

resolution of these issues would affect

where LPFM stations could locate and

the stability of their operations.

Additionally, LPFM interference

protection rights and responsibilities

could affect existing and future FM

radio service. The NPRM proposed a

1000-watt primary service and a 100-

watt secondary service. It sought

comment on a 10-watt class of LPFM

station that would be secondary to all

other FM radio services. As proposed,

LP100 and LP10 stations would not be

permitted to interfere within the

protected service contours of existing

7624 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

and future primary stations and would

not be protected against interference

from these stations. We sought comment

on whether LP100 stations should be

permitted to select channels without

regard to interference received and on

the extent to which LP100 stations

should protect FM translator and

booster stations.

61. Comments: Given our decision not

to create a 1000-watt LPFM station

class, this summary is limited to the

issue of spectrum priorities for LP100

and LP10 stations. The comments were

divided on whether LPFM stations

should have a primary or secondary

regulatory status. Several commenters

supported primary status for all LPFM

stations, mainly to help ensure their

survival. Some commenters supported a

modified form of primary status for

LPFM. Other commenters, including

some broadcast licensees, supported a

secondary status for LPFM stations.

62. Decision. In crafting interference

protection rights and responsibilities for

an LPFM service, we seek to balance our

vital interest in maintaining the

technical integrity of existing radio

services with our desire to create a

supple and viable community-oriented

radio service. First and foremost, we

must require that new LPFM stations

protect radio reception within the

service areas of existing full-service

stations, as well as the existing services

of FM translator and booster stations.

Second, LPFM stations, with their much

smaller service areas and fewer service

regulations, should not prevent FM

stations from modifying or upgrading

their facilities, nor should they preclude

opportunities for new full-service

stations. Additionally, LPFM

applications will be required to protect

vacant FM allotments. Subject to these

constraints, however, we want to foster

a stable and enduring LPFM service.

Once an LPFM station is built and

operating, we wish to permit it to

continue operating on its channel,

wherever possible, as the radio

environment changes around it. We

want to minimize, to the extent

possible, the situations in which we

would require an LPFM station to

change its channel or cease operating.

This measure of stability, we believe,

would assist LPFM station applicants or

operators in obtaining financing to

construct and operate stations and to

better serve their communities. It may

also create an incentive for the

operation of a first local radio station in

many communities or radio service that

would be responsive to other unmet

needs. We believe the approach set forth

below appropriately balances the above

objectives.

63. Protection to existing FM radio

services: Applicants for new or modified

LP100 or LP10 facilities will be required

to meet minimum station separation

distances to protect the service contours

of authorized commercial and

noncommercial FM stations of all

classes, including Class D. In the same

manner, they will be required to protect

the existing service of FM translator and

booster stations and LP100 stations. We

will also require LPFM applicants to

protect full-service FM, FM translator

and LP100 facilities proposed in

applications (for example, FM minor

change applications) filed before a

public notice announcing an LPFM

application filing window. Applications

filed after the release date of an LPFM

window notice will not be protected

against LPFM applications filed in that

window. However, full-service

applicants will not be required to

protect the facilities proposed in LPFM

applications. We believe this approach

fairly balances the interests of fullservice and LPFM applicants. LPFM

station proposals to operate on channels

201–220 will also be required to protect

television stations operating on TV

Channel 6. Applicants for LP100

stations will not be required to protect

authorized LP10 stations or LP10

application proposals, given the

relatively smaller service areas of LP10

stations.

64. The extent of interference

protection from LPFM stations to

existing FM, LPFM and FM translator

and booster service generally will be

that afforded by minimum station

separation requirements. These were

designed to provide the same degree of

interference protection that full-service

stations provide each other. We have

added a 20-kilometer buffer to the

separations for protecting co-channel

and first adjacent channel full-service

stations. This buffer will help to protect

FM radio facilities that were modified or

upgraded in a manner that would create

a short-spacing with an operating LPFM

station. LPFM stations will not be

required to eliminate interference

caused to FM stations by their lawful

operations. They will, however, be

required to eliminate interference

caused by operations that violate the

terms of the station’s authorization or

the Commission’s Rules; for example,

radiation of excessive emissions outside

of the station’s authorized channel.

LPFM station operators will also be

required to respond to complaints of

‘‘blanketing’’ interference. They will

also be subject to international

agreements regarding the elimination of

interference to primary Canadian or

Mexican broadcast stations. Until these

agreements are modified, we believe it

is appropriate to apply to LPFM stations

the international provisions applicable

to FM translators, which operate at

comparable power levels.

65. LPFM rights and responsibilities

with respect to subsequently modified,

upgraded or new full-service FM

stations. We are not adopting for the

LPFM service many of the regulations

applicable to full-service stations; for

example LPFM stations will not be

required to have a main studio. LPFM

stations also will service much smaller

areas than full-service stations. For

these reasons, we do not believe that an

LPFM station should be given an

interference protection right that would

prevent a full-service station from

seeking to modify its transmission

facilities or upgrade to a higher service

class. Nor should LPFM stations

foreclose opportunities to seek new fullservice radio stations. Accordingly,

operating LPFM stations will not be

protected against interference from

subsequently authorized full-service

facility modifications, upgrades, or new

FM stations. Because we will not protect

LPFM from future FM facilities, we will

not require LPFM applicants to meet

minimum distance separation

requirements to protect their service

areas against interference received.

However, as a guide to LPFM

applicants, the attached rules includes

minimum station separation distances

necessary to protect an LPFM station’s

60 dBu contour.

66. We expressed our desire to

provide a measure of stability to

operating LPFM stations. For this

purpose, we will permit LPFM stations

to continue operating even though they

would cause interference within the

protected service contours of a

subsequent authorized FM service,

including new stations and facilities

modifications or upgrades of existing

stations. In such situations, the LPFM

operator would decide whether

interference received to its service

would permit the station to continue

operating on its channel. However, we

must make one exception to this policy.

FM stations have a core responsibility to

service their principal communities.

Therefore, we will not permit an

operating LPFM station to cause

interference within a commercial or

NCE FM station’s 3.16 mV/m (70 dB)

contour. This issue can only arise in

connection with a subsequently filed

full-service new station or modification

application. If grant of such an

application would result in predicted

interference within the 3.16 mV/m (70

dBu) contour of the proposed station,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7625

the affected LPFM station will be

provided an opportunity to demonstrate

that interference is unlikely to occur

within this contour due to, for example,

terrain shielding. If the LPFM station

fails to make a sufficient showing, it

will be directed to cease operations

upon the commencement of program

tests by the commercial or NCE FM

station.

67. We recognize that actual

interference within the 3.16 mV/m

contour might still be possible where

the LPFM station has demonstrated that

it is unlikely. In these circumstances, a

complaint of actual interference must be

served on the LPFM station and filed

with the Commission, attention Audio

Services Division. The LPFM station

must suspend operations within twentyfour hours of the receipt of a complaint

unless the interference has been

eliminated by the application of suitable

techniques and to the satisfaction of the

complainant. An LPFM station may

resume operations only at the direction

of the Commission. If the Commission

determines that a complainant has

refused to permit the LPFM station to

apply remedial techniques that

demonstrably will eliminate the

interference without impairment of the

original reception of the full-service

station, the licensee of the LPFM station

will be absolved of further

responsibility. As a practical matter we

believe that in many cases involving FM

station modifications or upgrades,

interference to new or expanded areas

will be offset by the conservative

separation distances met by the LPFM

station when it was initially authorized,

particularly because of the 20-kilometer

interference protection buffer.

3. Minimum Distance Separation

Requirements

68. Background. The NPRM

tentatively concluded that minimum

distance separation requirements for

LPFM stations would provide the most

efficient means to process a large

number of applications while ensuring

the overall technical integrity of the FM

service. We proposed minimum

spacings to protect full-service station

operation on the same channel, firstadjacent channel and intermediate

frequency (IF) channels. We proposed to

exclude third-adjacent channel

protection and questioned the need for

second-adjacent channel spacing

requirements. We noted that the use of

a contour overlap methodology could

significantly delay the implementation

of the LPFM service because it would

require substantial preparation on the

part of applicants and the Commission

and would increase the processing

burden on the staff. The NPRM included

spacing tables for the proposed LPFM

classes based on the interference

protection ratios that underlie fullservice radio separations and the

assumption that stations operate at the

maximum height and power for their

station class. We sought comment on

the accuracy of the specific values listed

in these tables. In addition, we

requested comment as to whether

alternate approaches, including contour

overlap methodology and/or more

sophisticated terrain modeling

programs, should be used at a later time,

based on our initial experience in

authorizing LPFM service.

69. Comments. No comments

challenge any of the specific values

listed in our proposed minimum

distance separation tables. However,

one suggests an alternate methodology

based upon a full service station’s 44

dBu F(50,50) protected service contour,

instead of the 60 dBu contour that

defines the protected service contours

for all NCE and many commercial

stations. Although it does not calculate

distance separations, some commenters

argue that our separation requirements

should protect actual service areas

beyond protected contours. Several

commenters urged either the use of a

contour overlap methodology or a

combination of contour overlap and

separation requirements in order to

accommodate the licensing of additional

LPFM stations.

70. Decision. We recognize that a

distance separation methodology will

preclude new LPFM stations in some

areas. However, we are not persuaded

that the potential benefit of some

additional stations is substantial enough

to warrant the preparation of more

complex and costly engineering exhibits

based on contour protection and the

resulting delays in the authorization of

LPFM service. Therefore, we are

adopting minimum separation

requirements for the LPFM service as

the means of protecting full service

commercial and noncommercial

educational stations. We also adopt

spacing rules to protect FM translator

stations and other LPFM stations, as

well as a spacing table for LPFM

stations operating on Channels 201

through 220 with respect to protection

of TV Channel 6. As we proposed in the

NPRM, we will not establish minimum

separations between LPFM stations that

operate two or three channels apart.

Special case spacing tables are also

being adopted for Puerto Rico and the

U.S. Virgin Islands. Additionally,

appropriate spacings will be used for

the approximately 20 ‘‘grandfathered

superpowered’’ stations operating in the

reserved band. Superpowered stations

will be protected under the distance

separations for the class of station that

most closely approximates its facilities.

This determination will be made based

upon the stations 1 m V/m reference

contour and the procedures for

determining class listed in § 73.211.

LPFM applicants should be mindful of

the fact that the minimum separation

distances being adopted will not protect

LPFM stations against interference from

the full service stations, but are

designed to prevent the LPFM station

from causing interference to the

protected service areas of full-service

FM and other protected stations.

However, as a guide to LPFM

applicants, we are including in the rules

a table giving the minimum separations

necessary to avoid interference within

the LPFM station service areas.

71. The minimum distance separation

requirements that we adopt here for

LPFM stations do not apply to fullservice stations and FM translators. To

prevent subsequently filed FM

translator stations from causing

interference to existing LPFM stations,

we will expand the current FM

translator interference protection rules

to include a requirement that previously

authorized LPFM stations be protected.

As noted, we will permit a full service

station to modify its facility in a manner

that reduces these separations to LPFM

stations. However, in such cases we

generally will not require the LPFM

station to cease operation. Instead, the

affected stations will have to bear any

interference caused by facilities

changes, such as an FM transmitter site

move. However, so as to reduce the

potential impact on the affected

stations, the spacing rules we adopt

today include a 20 km ‘‘buffer’’ for cochannel and first-adjacent channel

LPFM-to-full-service-FM stations. This

additional separation is included for

two reasons. First of all, we recognize

that the FM band is not static. For

example, broadcast stations often

change transmitter sites to provide

better service to their communities and

service areas. Same-station-class

transmitter site moves are generally less

than 20 km from the original site.

Therefore, inclusion of the 20 km buffer

spacing allows full-service stations

room to move while also reducing the

potential impact on existing LPFM

stations. Second, and equally important,

the additional separation affords the

LPFM station an increased likelihood

that its operation would not cause

interference within a full service

station’s community of license. This

additional 20 km separation will apply

7626 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

only to the initial establishment of the

LPFM station. Subsequent site moves by

the LPFM station would either need to

meet this distance separation

requirement, or if the existing spacing

were already less than this amount due

to a prior site move by a full service

station, the spacing could not be less

than the currently existing separation.

72. International Coordination

Provisions. We are also adopting

provisions for LP10 and LP100 stations

which lie within 320 km of the

Canadian or Mexican borders,

consonant with existing international

agreements between the respective

countries. We will apply the existing

FM translator rule, 47 CFR 74.1235, and

current international coordination

procedures to LPFM stations in these

areas. In the rules, we include distance

separation tables that were intended to

ensure compliance with the appropriate

international agreements. We will adopt

these tables to the extent that foreign

stations are provided the appropriate

protection. We have also derived similar

tables for LP10 stations. We will only

accept LPFM proposals that meet these

distances. Such proposals will be

coordinated as required by the pertinent

agreements. In addition, LP10 and

LP100 applicants in the U.S. Virgin

Islands should be aware that

international coordination may be

required with the British Virgin Islands

in some instances.

4. Second and Third Adjacent Channel

Protection

73. Background. In the NPRM we

sought comment on the interference

protection criteria to be used to govern

the authorization of low power radio

services. We stated that low power

stations would be subject to existing cochannel and 1st-adjacent channel

protections but that to the extent

possible we were inclined to authorize

low power service without any 2nd- and

3rd-adjacent channel protection

standards. We stated our belief that a

strong case could be made for not

requiring 3rd-adjacent channel

protection to or from any of the

contemplated classes of LPFM stations.

We indicated that such an approach

would entail little risk of interference to

existing radio service. We noted that

areas of potential interference to a full

power station would be very small and

occur only in the immediate vicinity of

the low power transmission facility. We

further indicated that such interference

would generally only occur if the low

power station were located at, or very

near, the outer edge of the full power

station’s service contour where the full

power station’s signal is the weakest.

We noted that 3rd-adjacent channel

protection was eliminated for certain

grandfathered and short-spaced full

power stations in 1997. On balance, we

stated that creating opportunities for a

new LPFM service should outweigh any

small risks of interference to and from

LP1000 and LP100 stations.

74. With regard to 2nd-adjacent

channel protection, we noted that

‘‘grandfathered’’ short-spaced FM

facilities were permitted to modify their

facilities without regard to 2nd- and

3rd-adjacent channel spacings during

the period from 1964 to 1987, and from

1997 to the present. We indicated that

no interference complaints were

received as a result of those

modifications and found that the small

risk of interference was outweighed by

improved service. Similarly, we noted

that we have been willing in the past to

accept small amounts of potential 2ndand 3rd-adjacent channel interference in

the noncommercial FM service where

such interference is counterbalanced by

substantial service gains. We sought

comment on the state of receiver

technology and the ability of receivers

to operate satisfactorily in the absence

of 2nd-adjacent channel protection. We

also sought comment on the impact of

eliminating 2nd-adjacent channel

protection on the possible conversion of

existing analog radio services to a digital

mode, in particular with regard to inband-on-channel (IBOC) technology. In

this regard, we noted that one IBOC

proponent, suggested that 2nd-adjacent

channel signals from analog FM stations

in the existing radio environment would

not pose an interference threat to its

digital IBOC signal.

75. Comments. Technical studies of

FM receivers were filed in response to

the NPRM by Consumer Electronics

Manufacturers Association; by National

Association of Broadcasters; and by

National Lawyers’ Guild, Committee on

Democratic Communications. In

addition, the Commission’s Office of

Engineering and Technology conducted

a receiver study and placed it in the

record of this proceeding.

Supplementary findings and critiques

were filed with reply comments.

76. Decision. We find that the record

in this proceeding, including the

technical data and other studies

submitted, supports a conclusion that

any risk of interference from LPFM

stations of 100 watts or less is small

and, on balance, is outweighed by the

benefits of this new service. We

conclude that it is not necessary to

apply 3rd-adjacent channel protection

requirements to or from such stations.

We believe that 100-watt or lower LPFM

stations operating on 3rd-adjacent

channels will not result in significant

new interference to the service of

existing FM stations. Nor do we believe

such operations are likely to have an

adverse effect on digital IBOC signals.

77. With regard to 2nd-adjacent

channel protection requirements, it

appears that the risk of interference

from LPFM signals on 2nd-adjacent

channels may be somewhat higher. We

find that this would also be true with

regard to LPFM stations at power levels

higher than 100 watts and antenna

heights higher than 30 meters.

Therefore, we will retain 2nd-adjacent

channel protection requirements.

5. Other Technical Standards and

Provisions

78. Background. In the NPRM, we

sought comment on which part 73

technical operating requirements for

full-service stations should be applied

to LPFM stations. In general, most

commenters stated that, although some

requirements must remain to ensure a

quality service, the LP100 and LP10

stations should be held to less stringent

requirements than full service stations.

While we do not want to overly burden

LPFM operators, we nevertheless

believe that the technical rules set forth

below should apply to the LPFM

stations. By doing so, we will not only

facilitate technically sound LPFM

operations and the use of available

equipment, but will permit LPFM

stations to engage in services such as

those obtained through the multiplexing

of FM subcarriers. There are some

requirements applicable to full-service

stations which we believe can be

relaxed or not applied. Accordingly, we

will apply certain rules to LP10 stations

that apply to existing stations that

operate with ten watts transmitter

power output (TPO) or less. The

following paragraphs set forth the

principal technical requirements and

provisions for LPFM stations. These

technical matters were generally noncontroversial to parties who filed

comments in this proceeding. Other

technical requirements for LPFM

stations are given in the rules.

79. Power/Height restrictions. Several

commenters expressed the desire to

operate facilities at heights in excess of

those specified as the maximum/

minimum facilities for the class. This

would enable stations to use existing

structures at sites where the localized

elevation is such that the 30 meter

HAAT would be exceeded regardless of

the height of the structure. One

commenter, believes we should impose

strict maximum height restrictions on

LPFM stations since, due to the nature

of the Commission’s F(50,10)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7627

interference prediction curves,

equivalent 1 mV/m (60 dBu) reference

contours do not always guarantee

proportionally sized interfering

contours. We will allow LPFM stations

to exceed the class-defined upper height

restrictions as long as there is an

offsetting decrease in the station’s

effective radiated power. For this

purpose, we will authorize equivalent

height and power combinations to

produce the 60 dBu contour generated

by the maximum and minimum

permitted facilities for the LP100 and

LP10 stations; e.g., the maximum LP100

facilities of 100 watts and 30 meters

produce a 60 dBu contour at a distance

of 5.6 km.

80. We recognize that computing a

station’s HAAT requires access to

terrain database and numerous

calculations. Therefore, in order to

streamline the application process, the

staff will utilize a computer program to

calculate the antenna HAAT based upon

information provided by the LPFM

applicant (the coordinates of the

proposed antenna, the site elevation

above mean sea level, and the antenna

height above ground level (AGL)). If the

calculated HAAT is less than or equal

to 30 meters, the LPFM station will be

authorized to operate with any ERP

within the maximum and minimum

limits for its class. If the HAAT is

calculated to exceed 30 meters, the

permit will specify maximum and

minimum ERP values that would

produce the reference 60 dBu contours.

81. Directional antennas. Under our

current rules, full service FM stations

may specify directional antennas to

avoid interference to other stations.

Such facilities are subject to several

strict installation and pattern

requirements (see 47 CFR 73.316).

Processing these applications is staff

intensive. Construction permits for

directional facilities generally contain

numerous conditions. Since we are

relying on a minimum distance

separation methodology—rather than a

contour-based approach—to provide

interference protection, we see no need

for stations to employ directional

antennas. Accordingly, to simplify

applicant requirements and facilitate

application processing and ensure that

service can be implemented as

expeditiously as possible, we will not

authorize directional antennas for LPFM

stations.

82. Transmission standards. The

NPRM asked whether different

transmission standards should be

employed for an LPFM service; for

example, whether the bandwidth could

be reduced from 200 kHz to some

smaller value as a means of reducing the

potential interference from LPFM

stations. To ensure technically sound

station operations, we have decided to

apply to LPFM several transmission

standards presently in use for

commercial and noncommercial

educational FM stations. In most cases,

these standards will be met through the

use of type certified equipment without

need for further adjustment by the

LPFM licensee. LPFM stations will be

required to adhere to the 200 kHz

channel bandwidth applicable to full

service stations, as well as the out-ofchannel signal attenuation requirements

in 47 CFR 73.317, the center frequency

drift limits in 47 CFR 73.1545(b), and

the limits on modulation in 47 CFR

73.1570(a) and (b). In addition, LPFM

stations may, at their option, engage in

monophonic or stereophonic

broadcasting. LPFM stations may also

transmit additional information via

inaudible subcarriers during those

periods when the audible FM signal is

on the air.

83. Antenna polarization. We will

permit LP10 and LP100 stations

throughout the FM band to use

horizontally polarized, vertically

polarized, or circularly or elliptically

polarized antennas, as desired by the

applicant. We note that vertical-only

polarized antennas have been used in

the noncommercial educational FM

service to protect reception of TV

Channel 6 for nearly 15 years now,

without adverse impact. This will afford

LPFM stations a wider selection of

antennas for use at LPFM stations.

84. Protection of AM radio radiation

patterns. LPFM applicants should also

be aware that antenna structure

construction within 3.2 km (2 miles) of

a directional AM station or 0.8 km (0.5

miles) of a nondirectional AM station

will subject the LPFM station to the

requirements of 47 CFR 73.1692. This

section requires the affected AM station

to make before and after measurements

of its installation to insure that the new

antenna structure does not aversely

affect the signal pattern through

reflections of the AM signal produced

by the new structure. The LPFM

applicant is financially responsible for

conducting the measurements and any

corrective measures that may need to be

undertaken. The measurements can be

quite expensive to conduct, and

correction even more so. Therefore, we

encourage LPFM applicants to locate the

antenna more than 3.2 km from any

directional AM station, or more than 0.8

km from any AM nondirectional station.

85. Tower Height/FAA Coordination

Requirements. Any proposal before the

Commission that specifies an antenna

supporting structure in excess of 61

meters above ground level is subject to

the Commission’s requirements for

antenna structure registration

requirements. Certain lower structures

located close to air facilities are also

subject to these requirements. All

structures subject to registration

requirements must obtain an FAA

Determination of No Air Hazard for the

structure before the tower may be

registered. In a letter dated June 1, 1999,

the FAA expressed some concern

regarding the impact LP1000 stations

may have upon nearby air facilities. No

specific questions were raised regarding

the lower powered facilities. Since we

are not authorizing an LP1000 service at

this time, we will continue determining

compliance with our tower registration

requirements in the manner set forth.

86. Blanketing Interference. For one

year after the commencement of

transmissions with new or modified

facilities, all FM stations are required to

take remedial action to resolve

blanketing interference complaints

occurring within the immediate vicinity

of the antenna site. A station’s specific

blanketing interference radius is defined

by our rules. The blanketing contour for

an LP100 station would extend

approximately 125 meters from the

transmitter site and a 10-watt LP10

blanketing contour would extend 39

meters. Thus, the blanketing area of

either type of station is very small. We

conclude that LPFM stations should be

required to resolve blanketing

interference complaints in the same

manner applicable to full power

stations. Although the potential for

blanketing interference from LPFM

stations may be quite limited, affected

parties are entitled to relief from such

interference caused by a new source of

radiation, whether it is a full-power

commercial station or a new low power

community broadcaster. Accordingly,

we will apply the requirements in

§ 73.318 to all LPFM stations, in

accordance with established precedents.

87. Potential Television Channel 6

Interference. Presently, noncommercial

educational FM applicants are required

to consider the impact of their

operations on reception of television

Channel 6, which operates on a

frequency band (82 to 88 MHz) just

below the FM band (88 to 108 MHz) in

accordance with the provisions of 47

CFR 73.525. Determining the affected

interference area pursuant to this

section usually requires complex

calculations and detailed contour

studies. Given the very limited potential

for interference caused by LPFM

stations, in order to simplify processing

and lessen the filing burden on

applicants, we will utilize a spacing

7628 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

table to protect TV Channel 6 stations.

The values given in the table utilize the

protection ratios of § 73.525 and worst

case facilities for the TV Channel 6 and

the LP10 and LP100 stations. On this

basis, we do not anticipate that

interference will occur. However, we

will require LPFM applicants to correct

any complaints of interference caused to

Channel 6 reception in accordance with

our blanketing interference

requirements (as are Channel 6

complaints regarding full service

stations). In most cases, this will require

the installation of simple filters on

affected television sets. LPFM

applicants will not be required to

coordinate their proposals with any

potentially affected Channel 6 television

station.

88. Radio Reading Services. Several

radio reading services have expressed

concerns about interference from LPFM

stations to their service to persons who

are blind or who have low vision.

Programming provided by radio reading

services is transmitted on subcarrier

frequencies of a broadcast station,

which are not audible on a standard

radio. As the subcarrier frequencies are

transmitted within the 200 kHz

bandwidth of the broadcast station, they

receive the same protection from

interference as does the main broadcast

programming. Thus, insofar as the

transmitted subcarrier signal is

concerned, there will be no increase in

interference. With respect to subcarrier

receivers used by the radio reading

service audience, the Commission does

not set technical standards for radio

receivers. Thus, we cannot consider

whether additional interference might

affect SCA reception in the vicinity of

an LPFM station, or whether different

receiver construction could reduce

possible interference. However, we note

that the 20 km buffer between LPFM

stations and co-channel or 1st adjacent

channel full service FM stations

adopted in this document should afford

additional protection to subcarrier

reception than was proposed in the

NPRM.

89. Transmitter Certification. In the

NPRM, we tentatively concluded LPFM

stations should utilize only transmitters

deemed ‘‘type certified’’ by the

Commission’s Office of Engineering and

Technology (OET) to ensure the

integrity of the FM radio spectrum.

Type certification would prevent the

use of transmitters with excessive

bandwidth or modulation, spurious

emissions, excessive power output, or

insufficient frequency stability, which

could cause interference to other

existing stations. A large majority of

commenters concurred with this

conclusion. A few licensed amateur

radio operators felt that they should be

exempt from this requirement, asserting

that many amateurs were capable of

creating suitable equipment. However,

we remain concerned about the

significant potential for interference

caused by non-type certified

transmitters, particularly given the

interference-protection standards we are

adopting. Nor do we believe that type

certification of equipment by the

manufacturer will add appreciably to

the cost of equipment for a low power

broadcast radio station. Accordingly, we

will adopt the certification requirement

as proposed in the NPRM. We

emphasize that the use of non-type

certified transmitters will not be

tolerated. Use of non-type certified

transmitters will subject the licensee to

enforcement action including, but not

limited to, fines.

90. Unattended Operation. We

anticipate that many LPFM stations will

be run as ‘‘attended operations,’’ since

the transmitter sites will be located at

the source of program origination.

However, LPFM stations may also be

operated in ‘‘unattended’’ mode. During

these times, there may be no personnel

at the studio or transmitter site to

monitor operation. LPFM stations that

will operate unattended will be required

to advise the Commission by simple

letter of the unattended operation, and

provide an address and telephone

number where a responsible party can

be reached during such times. The

responsible party must be able at all

times to turn off the transmitter within

3 hours of receiving notice from the FCC

that the equipment is not functioning

properly. In addition, we encourage the

use of monitoring equipment that can

automatically shut off the transmitter

within 3 hours if a fault (such as

operation at excessive power operation

or center frequency drift) occurs.

Finally, during periods when the LPFM

station is not transmitting programming

on its regular channel, the transmitter

must be turned off.

91. Station Logs. Station logs provide

a mechanism for verifying proper

operation of a station, as they require

the licensee to examine the operation

before making a log entry. Logging

requirements for LPFM stations will be

minimal. The station log for LPFM will

contain only the following entries: (1)

Daily observation of proper function of

tower obstruction lighting (if required

by section 17.47 of the Commission’s

Rules); (2) dates and a brief explanation

regarding station outages due to

equipment malfunctioning, servicing or

replacement; (3) any operation not in

accordance with the station license; (4)

receipt of weekly EAS (Emergency Alert

System) test; (5) name of person making

the entry.

92. These minimal requirements will

not impose any significant burden on

LPFM licensees. Except for any required

daily tower lighting checks, entries need

only be made when necessary. Logs

must be retained for two years from the

date of the last entry, and station logs

must be made available to FCC

personnel upon request.

93. Environmental Requirements. As

with any applicant for a Commission

license, an LPFM proponent will have

to certify compliance with the

environmental requirements of section

1.1307 of our rules. In order to facilitate

the preparation and processing of LPFM

applications, we will simplify the

environmental compliance worksheets

included in the current FCC Form 301

to account for the low operating power

of LPFM stations.

94. Radio Astronomy Installation

Notifications. Low power FM broadcast

stations will be required to coordinate

with and provide protection to the radio

quiet zones at Green, West Virginia and

at Boulder Colorado, as is required for

full service FM stations by § 73.1030. In

addition, low power FM applicants in

Puerto Rico will need to coordinate with

Cornell University regarding the radio

coordination zone on that island. This

requirement is necessary to ensure that

research work at these installations will

not be disrupted. Because of the low

power and antenna height of LPFM

stations, we anticipate that this

requirement will affect very few

applicants.

F. Application Processing

1. Electronic Filing

95. Background. The Commission

recently mandated the electronic filing

of broadcast applications after a

transition period of six months from the

date that each form becomes available

for filing electronically. Likewise, we

proposed in the NPRM to require that

LPFM applications be filed

electronically. We stated that mandatory

electronic filing could speed the

introduction of LPFM service by

enabling the staff to process more

quickly and efficiently the large number

of LPFM applications that we expect to

receive. In addition, we indicated that

electronic filing software could be

designed to assist applicants with

technical issues related to their

applications, such as determining what

frequencies are available based on

current information in the

Commission’s database. We requested

comment as to whether Internet access

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7629

is sufficiently universal to warrant

mandatory electronic filing of LPFM

applications.

96. Comments. Commenters that

addressed the matter generally support

the use of electronic filing, but are

divided as to whether it should be

mandatory. Several commenters express

concern that electronic filing is untried

and may delay the introduction of

LPFM service. Several commenters urge

that, regardless of whether electronic

filing is required, LPFM filing

procedures should be as simple and

inexpensive as possible.

97. Decision. We anticipate that

electronic forms will be made available

via the Commission’s World Wide Web

site prior to the opening of the first

LPFM filing window. Based on our

consideration of the record, however,

we will not adopt a mandatory

electronic filing system for LPFM

application forms at this time. Rather,

assuming availability of the forms, we

will make electronic filing permissive

for the first LPFM filing window, which

we intend to open for LP100 stations

shortly after the effective date of this

document. Whether electronic filing is

permissive for the second window that

we anticipate opening for LP10 stations,

as well as for any subsequent LPFM

filing windows, will be resolved at a

later date and will depend on several

factors, including our experience with

both electronic and paper filing during

the first LPFM window and the time

that elapses between the first and

second windows.

98. We recognize that, as some

commenters point out, there may be

disparities among potential LPFM

applicants in terms of Internet access

and/or computer skills. We believe that

making electronic filing permissive at

this time will accommodate applicants

that might be disadvantaged by

mandatory electronic filing. We

previously have discussed the

significant advantages of a mandatory

electronic filing system in terms of

realizing savings and efficiencies. We do

not believe that electronic filing would

necessarily constitute an undue burden

or expense for potential LPFM

applicants, as the costs of computer and

modem equipment continue to fall, and

Internet access increasingly is becoming

available at minimal cost commercially

and at public institutions such as

libraries. In addition, the Commission

has made, and will continue to make,

great efforts to create a simple, userfriendly electronic filing system.

However, at present we are determined

to be cautious with the first applications

for a new service filed by applicants

whose resources and familiarity with

Commission processes may be very

limited. We will reassess our electronic

filing decision after our experience

during the first filing window. We can

better determine at that time whether

the first filing window has provided a

reasonable opportunity for interested

parties to understand and arrange for

Internet access and familiarize

themselves with our Web site and

electronic filing system. We can then

determine whether the public interest

benefits of mandatory electronic filing

will outweigh any difficulties

encountered or inequities expected, and

decide whether electronic filing will

remain voluntary or be mandated for

use by all.

99. Although electronic filing will be

permissive, we strongly encourage

applicants to take advantage of

electronic filing, and expect that many

will do so. The forms will be accessible

to anyone with a computer and a

modem, without the need to purchase

any special computer software. The

Commission’s software will make filing

more certain for applicants by

automatically notifying them of critical

errors or omissions in their applications,

and allowing them to correct the

applications prior to submission. This

software also will provide applicants

with immediate verification that their

applications have been received by the

Commission. In addition, it will allow

applicants to submit amendments, make

corrections to their previously-filed

applications, and submit narrative,

explanatory exhibits. Furthermore, we

intend to design additional software that

will be available on the Commission’s

Web site to assist interested parties in

making a preliminary determination as

to which frequencies are available for

LPFM use, based on current information

in the Commission’s database. Thus,

LPFM applicants using the electronic

filing system also will have access to a

form of automated technical assistance

in preparing their applications.

2. Window Filing Process

100. Background. We proposed in the

NPRM to adopt a window filing

approach for LPFM applications, with

short filing windows of a few days each

to ‘‘lessen the occurrence of mutually

exclusive applications and speed

service to the public.’’ The Commission

recently substituted a uniform window

filing procedure for the various

application procedures for new

commercial broadcast stations, and for

major changes to existing stations.

Under this procedure, the Commission

announces by public notice a ‘‘window’’

or specific time period during which

applications may be filed. When the

window closes, the staff reviews the

applications filed to determine whether

any request mutually exclusive

authorizations and, therefore, are

subject to competitive bidding. Nonmutually exclusive applications are

processed in accordance with our

general procedures. Groups of mutually

exclusive applications are identified by

public notice and proceed to auction.

The Commission also is considering

substituting a window procedure for the

two-step, cut-off list procedures now in

place for full-service NCE broadcast

applications.

101. In the NPRM, we also asked for

comment as to whether a first come-first

served process might serve the public

interest better than a window process by

more effectively avoiding mutual

exclusivity among LPFM applications.

We speculated that electronic filing

‘‘might give us the capacity to ascertain

the precise sequence in which

applications are submitted by different

parties.’’ Thus, applications conflicting

with ones filed ‘‘even a moment earlier’’

might be rejected as unacceptable for

filing, avoiding mutual exclusivity in

many cases. We noted a number of

drawbacks to this approach, however,

including the possibility that applicants

might lose filing rights based solely on

the quality of their Internet connections.

102. Comments. Many commenters

support a window filing approach, and

offer various suggestions as to the

appropriate duration of filing windows.

Some commenters favor a first comefirst served filing system, generally

contending that it would be a better

means of avoiding mutual exclusivity

than a window approach. Several

commenters suggest hybrid approaches

combining elements of window and first

come-first served systems.

103. Decision. Based on our

consideration of the record, we will

adopt a window filing process for LPFM

applications. We previously stated that

a window process ‘‘provides the staff

with a mechanism to control effectively

the filing and processing of broadcast

applications.’’ We believe that such a

mechanism is important here because of

the large number of LPFM applications

that we expect to receive. In addition,

the first-come first-served approach

envisioned in the NPRM, which would

determine filing priority based on the

exact time that applications are filed, is

feasible only if electronic filing is

required, which will not be the case, at

least initially. Moreover, we are

concerned that such an approach, by

placing a premium on filing at the

earliest possible moment, might unfairly

disadvantage certain applicants based

solely on the quality of their Internet

7630 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

connections. The filing of hundreds or

thousands of applications at once also

might place unbearable strains on the

LPFM electronic filing system. A

window filing process avoids these

pitfalls, as applicants will be able to file

at any time over a period of several days

without losing filing rights.

104. Once this document becomes

effective, the Mass Media Bureau,

pursuant to delegated authority, will

promptly release a public notice

announcing a national filing window for

LP100 applications. We anticipate that

this window will open in May. The

notice will be issued at least thirty days

in advance of the opening of the filing

window. Full power broadcast

applications filed on or after the date of

release of a public notice announcing

the opening of an LPFM window will

not preclude the filing of conflicting

LPFM applications filed during that

window. However, where the conflict

ultimately is determined to relate to

service inside the city grade contours of

the full power station, the LPFM

application will be dismissed. The

window itself will be open for a period

of five business days. We believe that

five days, combined with thirty days’

specific advance notice and the

additional time between the release of

this document and the public notice

announcing the window, should give

interested parties sufficient time to

prepare and file their LPFM

applications, while minimizing the

number of mutually exclusive LPFM

applications. We emphasize that

applications filed before or after the

dates specified in the public notice will

not be accepted.

105. In accordance with our window

filing procedure for commercial

broadcast applications, after the LPFM

window closes, the staff initially will

screen applications for the purpose of

identifying those that are mutually

exclusive and those that fail to protect

existing broadcast stations in

accordance with the standards adopted

herein. Applications that fail to properly

protect these existing stations will be

dismissed without the applicant being

afforded an opportunity to amend. This

will increase the speed and efficiency

with which LPFM applications can be

processed by the staff. Technically

acceptable non-mutually exclusive

applications will be further reviewed for

acceptability and processed by the staff

in accordance with the Commission’s

general procedures. Groups of mutually

exclusive applications will be identified

in a subsequent public notice, and will

be subject to the selection procedures

set forth. After an application is

tentatively selected from a mutually

exclusive group, it will be reviewed for

acceptability, and a public notice will

be released announcing the finding that

the application has been tentatively

selected and is acceptable for filing.

Petitions to deny the application will be

due within 30 days of the release of the

public notice of its acceptability for

filing. Petitions and informal objections

will not be considered unless and until

the application has been tentatively

selected for processing and found

acceptable for filing. A tentative selectee

whose application is found

unacceptable for filing will be given a

single opportunity to submit a curative

amendment, provided that the

amendment is minor and the amended

application has the same number of

points as originally claimed, or more

than the points claimed by the next

highest applicant. Tentative selectees

whose applications remain

unacceptable for filing after this

opportunity will be removed from their

mutually exclusive groups, and will not

be provided with an additional

opportunity to amend.

106. As stated, we are developing

software to assist interested parties in

determining whether specific

frequencies may be available at specific

locations for LPFM use. This software

will not be able to determine

conclusively whether a particular

frequency will be available for an

applicant, as frequency availability also

will depend, among other things, on

whether competing applications are

filed during the LPFM filing window.

Nevertheless, we anticipate that the

software will help interested parties

focus on potentially-available facilities,

and will provide technical assistance for

interested parties with limited financial

resources. We anticipate that this

software will be ready for use by the

time we announce the first filing

window for LPFM applications. The

Mass Media Bureau will issue a public

notice with information regarding how

to access the software and the technical

assistance it can provide. Such

information also will be posted on the

Commission’s Web site.

3. Selection Among Mutually Exclusive

Applications

107. Background. In the NPRM, we

requested comment as to whether the

proposed LPFM service should be

restricted to NCE applicants or open to

both commercial and NCE applicants.

We tentatively concluded that, pursuant

to statutory requirements, mutually

exclusive applications for commercial

LPFM facilities would be subject to

auction. We asked for comment on

alternative methods for resolving

mutual exclusivity among NCE LPFM

applicants. We specifically referred

commenters to our proceeding

reexamining full-service NCE

comparative standards, where we

sought comment on three possible

methods for selecting among mutually

exclusive applicants: (1) Comparative

hearings; (2) a lottery process weighted

in favor of certain applicants based on

statutory requirements and other factors;

and (3) a system assigning points to

applicants based on various selection

criteria.

108. Comments. Most commenters

that address the matter oppose the use

of competitive bidding, arguing that it

would undermine the Commission’s

stated goals in establishing the LPFM

service. Few commenters support the

use of comparative hearings to resolve

mutually exclusive NCE applications.

There was support among commenters

for the use of a lottery process, although

most of these commenters argued the

merits of lotteries over auctions, rather

than over an alternative selection

method. A number of commenters also

favored the use of a point system. In

addition, several commenters suggest

that we impose arbitration to resolve

mutual exclusivity, and one advocates

the use of ‘‘conflict reduction methods’’

such as allowing ‘‘liberal channel and

coverage changes.’’ Commenters also

propose various selection factors for use

within a comparative selection process.

109. Decision. Based on our

consideration of the record, we shall

adopt a point system for resolving

mutual exclusivity among LPFM

applicants. The point system will

include three selection criteria: (1)

Established community presence; (2)

proposed operating hours; and (3) local

program origination. The system will

employ voluntary time-sharing as a tiebreaker, that is, tied applicants will

have an opportunity to aggregate points

by submitting time-share proposals. As

a last resort, where a tie is not resolved

through time-sharing or settlement, we

shall award successive equal license

terms totaling eight years (the normal

license term), without renewal

expectancy for any of the licensees.

110. We conclude that the point

system we are adopting is superior to

alternative selection methods. As

discussed above, the LPFM service will

be reserved for noncommercial,

educational service, and we are

precluded by statute from using

auctions to award station licenses on

channels reserved for NCE use.

Accordingly, we need not discuss an

auction-based selection mechanism. In

our proceeding reexamining full-service

NCE comparative standards, we

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7631

tentatively rejected comparative

hearings because they tend to be

lengthy, cumbersome, and resourceintensive, without substantial offsetting

benefits. These disadvantages make

comparative hearings particularly illsuited for selecting LPFM applicants.

Like comparative hearings, mandatory

arbitration and engineering solutions

could impose significant delays on the

LPFM authorization process and impose

additional expenses on applicants.

Moreover, although we will encourage

individual settlements as a means of

resolving mutual exclusivity among

LPFM applicants, the Commission lacks

the resources to administer a system

that would require arbitration or the

imposition of engineering solutions in

every instance of mutual exclusivity.

Finally, we conclude that a lottery

system is comparatively inferior to a

point system as an LPFM selection

method. The primary benefits of a

lottery system are the speed and ease

with which it may be applied. As

discussed, however, a point system

offers like benefits. Moreover, there are

unresolved legal and policy issues

surrounding the use of a lottery system

that pose a risk of delaying the

introduction of LPFM service to the

public. A point system does not entail

similar risks. A lottery process is also

inherently inferior to a point system in

its ability to further the Commission’s

policy goals due its random nature. This

randomness may be mitigated, but not

eliminated, by weighting in favor of

certain types of applicants. For these

reasons, in the case of LPFM service, we

reject all of these approaches in favor of

a point system.

111. Point System. We believe that a

point system is the best-suited selection

methodology for promoting the

Commission’s policy goals for the LPFM

service and speeding its introduction to

the public. The Commission has used a

point system procedure with success in

the Instructional Television Fixed

Service (ITFS). Like lotteries, point

systems have the potential to be fast,

inexpensive, and administratively

efficient. Unlike lotteries, however,

point systems make possible the

selection of applicants based on

objective criteria designed to best

advance the public interest in the

particular service at issue. Finally, the

fact that LPFM licenses are nontransferable eliminates a major potential

disadvantage of any system based on

selection criteria; it prevents the

integrity of the system from being

undermined by the rapid assignment or

transfer of station licenses by an entity

that was awarded the license over other

applicants on some merit basis that is

not necessarily found in the buyer.

112. Point System Operation—

Selection Criteria. Our point system will

include three selection criteria for

mutually exclusive applicants: (1)

Established community presence; (2)

proposed operating hours; and (3) local

program origination. These criteria are

directly related to the advancement of

the public interest that the Commission

has found warrants the introduction of

this new service. To protect the integrity

of the selection process and ensure that

its full benefits may be realized, we

have chosen clear-cut selection factors

that are objective in nature and do not

require burdensome documentation.

113. Established Community

Presence. For the reasons set forth, first,

applicants that have an established

community presence of at least two

years’ duration will be awarded one

point. An applicant will be deemed to

have an established community

presence where, for a period of at least

two years prior to application, the

applicant is able to certify that it has

been physically headquartered, has had

a campus, or has had 75 percent of its

board members residing within 10 miles

of the reference coordinates of the

proposed transmitting antenna. This

criterion will 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 within their

communities. We believe that such

applicants, because of their

longstanding organizational ties to their

communities, are likely to be more

attuned to, and have organizational

experience addressing, the needs and

interests of their communities. In this

regard, a number of commenters suggest

preferences based on prior community

service and/or community support.

These suggested factors could be

subjective in nature, however, and

could be burdensome to demonstrate

and verify. In addition, we believe that

preferring organizations that have been

in existence and physically present in

the community for two years will help

prevent maneuvering of the point

system by those who might otherwise

establish multiple organizations to file

LPFM applications.

114. As we stated in our discussion of

the community-based eligibility

requirement, we do not believe this

preference for established local entities

contravenes the court’s concerns in

Bechtel. In adopting such a comparative

factor, we further note that the Bechtel

court was concerned that quantitative

integration factors worked to the virtual

exclusion of other factors the court

deemed potentially relevant in

determining the relative quality of

service that would be provided by an

applicant. For LPFM, we are including

other selection factors and giving them

equivalent weight in the selection

process. Moreover, while the two-year

presence factor has a quantitative

aspect, it is objectively verifiable and

does not depend on promises of future

performance, as the integration

preference did.

115. Applicants claiming points for

established community presence will be

required to certify in their applications

that they meet the above-stated

conditions. The application form will

identify appropriate documentation that

must be made available for the point

claimed. Applicants will be required to

submit this information at the time of

filing and it will be available in our

public reference room. As with other

broadcast applications, the Commission

will rely on certifications but will use

random audits to verify the accuracy of

the certifications. This information also

will enable applicants to verify that

competing applicants qualify for the

points they claim.

116. Proposed Operating Hours.

Second, applicants that pledge to

operate at least 12 hours per day will be

assigned one point. As set forth below,

the minimum operating hours for LPFM

stations will be five hours per day. This

criterion does not impose any additional

requirement, but awards points to

applicants that pledge longer hours of

operation. Applicants that propose more

intensive use of the broadcast

frequencies they seek will advance the

Commission’s general policy objective

of ensuring efficient spectrum use and

providing more programming to serve

their communities.

117. Local Program Origination.

Finally, applicants that pledge to

originate locally at least eight hours of

programming per day will be assigned

one point. For purposes of this criterion,

local origination will be defined as the

production of programming within 10

miles of the reference coordinates of the

proposed transmitting antenna. This

criterion derives from the service

requirements for full-service broadcast

stations, which are required to maintain

the capacity to originate programming

from their main studios. LPFM licensees

will not be subject to main studio

requirements, and will have discretion

to determine the origination point of

their programming. As a comparative

selection factor, local program

origination can advance the

Commission’s policy goal of addressing

unmet needs for community-oriented

7632 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

radio broadcasting. In this regard, we

believe 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.

118. With regard to both the second

and the third selection criteria,

applicants will be required to certify in

their applications that they will meet

the qualifying conditions for the points

claimed. We will require successful

applicants to adhere to their operating

hours and local program origination

pledges. As these criteria are

prospective in nature, they will not be

subject to verification at the application

stage. The Commission will use random

audits to verify the accuracy of the

certifications, and will consider written

complaints regarding actual

performance. Consistent with our

current practice, the staff may issue

letters of inquiry requiring submission

of documentation in connection with

such audits. Where analysis of the

requested information indicates that

licensees have not fulfilled their

pledges, appropriate action will be

taken, including the possibility of

monetary forfeitures and revocation

proceedings.

119. In choosing selection criteria, we

have carefully considered the comments

we received advocating various

selection factors, as well as the point

system elements under consideration in

our proceeding reexamining full-service

NCE comparative standards. We believe

that the factors we have chosen best

balance our interest in furthering the

specific localized objectives of the

LPFM service and avoiding

cumbersome, subjective and

manipulable criteria. We note that a

number of commenters advocate

preferences for entities controlled by

minorities. We shall defer consideration

of this matter. The Commission is

conducting fact-finding studies as to

whether such preferences may be

justified consistent with the Supreme

Court’s decision in Adarand

Constructors v. Pena. Depending on the

outcome of these studies, we will

consider in the future whether to adopt

minority control as a point system

factor.

120. 1st Tiebreaker—Voluntary TimeSharing. In the event that the point

system results in a tie among two or

more mutually exclusive applicants,

applicants will have the opportunity,

within 30 days of the release of a public

notice announcing the tie, to submit

amendments to their applications

incorporating voluntary time-share

proposals. Each time-share proponent

must propose to operate at least 10

hours per week. Time-share proposals

may function as tie-breakers in two

different ways. First, all of the tied

applicants in a mutually exclusive

group may propose a time-share

proposal, in which case the staff will

review and process all of the tied

applications. Second, some of the tied

applicants in a mutually exclusive

group may submit a time-share

proposal, in which case the timesharers’ points will be aggregated. Timesharers may aggregate points under each

of the three selection criteria. The

purpose of allowing point aggregation is

to encourage time-share arrangements as

a means of resolving mutual exclusivity

among tied LPFM applicants. In

addition, we believe that time-sharing

arrangements will serve the public

interest by increasing participation by a

variety of local community

organizations in the operation of LPFM

stations.

121. Our decision to incorporate

voluntary time-sharing into the point

system as a tie-breaker is based on our

judgment that voluntary time-share

arrangements have the potential to

advance the Commission’s goals for the

new service. We noted in our

proceeding reexamining full-service

NCE comparative standards that ‘‘[a]

number of commenters dislike

mandatory share-time arrangements,

finding them confusing to audiences,

and potentially inefficient for

licensees.’’ On a voluntary basis,

however, time-sharing has significant

potential advantages for LPFM

applicants. From a practical standpoint,

the localized nature of the LPFM service

is likely to enhance applicants’ ability to

time-share. In many cases, the small

scale of LPFM operations also may make

time-sharing more efficient for LPFM

licensees. Furthermore, by increasing

the number of new broadcast voices,

time-sharing can advance our interest in

promoting additional diversity in radio

voices and program services through the

LPFM service.

122. Final Tiebreaker—Successive

License Terms. As a last resort, in cases

where a tie is not resolved through

settlement or time-sharing, the staff will

review tied applications for

acceptability. Applicants whose

applications are grantable will be

eligible for equal, successive license

terms of no less than one year each,

spanning a total of eight years.

Successive license terms will not be

granted for groups of more than eight

tied, grantable applications. In the event

of such a situation, the staff will dismiss

all but the applications of the eight

entities with the longest established

community presences, as demonstrated

by the documentation submitted with

their applications. If this does not limit

the group of applications to eight, the

entire group will be deemed ungrantable

and will be dismissed if, after a final

opportunity to submit settlement

proposals within 30 days of the release

of a public notice, the situation is not

resolved. Where successive license

terms are granted, there will be no

renewal expectancy for any of the

licensees. If for some reason a

successive term licensee becomes

unable to operate the station during its

portion of the license term, that

licensee’s time will be divided equally

among the remaining licensees for that

station. If none of the tied, grantable

applications proposes same-site

facilities, then all will be granted at the

same time. The sequence of the

applicants’ license terms will be

determined by the sequence in which

they file their applications for licenses

to cover their construction permits,

based on the day of filing. However, if

any of the tied, grantable construction

permit applications propose same-site

facilities, the applicants proposing such

facilities will be required, within an

additional 30 days, to submit a

settlement agreement proposing the

sequence of the license terms for such

applicants. If they fail to do so, they will

be removed from the mutually exclusive

group and the remaining applications

will be granted.

123. Settlements. Applicants may

propose a full settlement at any time

during the selection process after the

release of the public notice announcing

the mutually exclusive group. Such

settlements must be universal—that is,

they must involve all of the mutually

exclusive applicants within a group—

and must comply with the

Commission’s general rules for

settlements, including the requirement

that the settling parties certify that they

have not received consideration for the

dismissal of their applications in excess

of their legitimate and prudent

expenses. Settlements may incorporate

voluntary time-share proposals.

124. Delegated Authority. As we

explained in our proceeding

reexamining full-service NCE

comparative standards, the Commission

currently may delegate authority for

applying point systems only to

administrative law judges or to

individual Commissioners. This

statutory restriction is based on the fact

that point systems technically are

considered a type of simplified hearing.

We believe that the staff would be able

to administer the LPFM point system in

a more streamlined manner than

administrative law judges or individual

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7633

Commissioners. Therefore, we will seek

authority from Congress, through

specific legislation, to delegate

responsibility to the staff for applying

the point system. Until we receive such

authority, the staff will refer point

system proceedings to the Commission

for disposition.

125. Minor Modification of

Authorized LPFM Stations. We will

adopt one exception to the window

filing process to permit the filing at any

time of certain ‘‘minor change’’

applications. For LP100 stations, a

minor change may involve a transmitter

site relocation of less than two

kilometers. For LP10 stations, a minor

change may involve a transmitter site

relocation of less than one kilometer.

Minor change applications may also

propose a change to an adjacent or IF

frequency or, upon a technical showing

of reduced predicted interference, to

any other frequency. Similarly, we will

consider as minor any change in

frequency necessary to resolve actual

interference. All other changes will be

classified as ‘‘major’’ and subject to our

window filing procedures. Minor

change applications also must satisfy

the technical and legal requirements

applicable to LPFM stations generally.

4. License Terms and Renewals

126. Background. In the NPRM, we

asked how often and how closely we

should actively monitor, within the

parameters of our statutory

responsibility, the performance of

LP100 stations in connection with the

license renewal process. We asked

whether a pro forma process would

satisfy any statutory requirement, in the

absence of specific public complaint.

We also asked for comment on whether

stations other than LP1000 stations

should be authorized for finite,

nonrenewable periods, such as five or

eight years, to create additional

opportunities for new entrants in the

LPFM service. We explained that

making broadcast outlets available to

more speakers is a fundamental premise

of this rulemaking effort, and that we

did not expect that such a limitation

would discourage the very modest

investment required to build such a

station. We sought comment on whether

the disruption of service to the public

that non-renewability would involve

outweighed the potential benefits of

making this service available to more

speakers on a consecutive basis.

127. Comments. Commenters propose

a variety of LPFM license terms and the

majority argue that LPFM licenses

should be renewable. Commenters

suggest license terms of one, two, four,

five, and seven years. Other commenters

contend that LPFM stations should have

the same eight year license periods

granted to full power stations.

128. Most commenters argue that all

LPFM licenses should be renewable.

Commenters also contend that LPFM

licensees should have the same renewal

expectancy as existing broadcasters.

129. Decision. We will provide LP100

and LP10 licensees with the same

license terms and renewal expectancy as

full-power FM radio stations.

Accordingly, licenses will be renewed

for a term not to exceed eight years from

the date of expiration of the preceding

license and LPFM licenses will be

renewed, without consideration of

competing applicants, if they have met

the renewal standard of section

309(k)(1) of the Act. Upon considering

the comments filed in this proceeding,

we find that granting renewable licenses

is consistent with the goals we are

seeking to advance with this service.

Moreover, we believe that nonrenewable

licenses would discourage licensees

from developing facilities and audiences

to the fullest extent possible. We

therefore will grant, with one exception

described in paragraph 132 below,

renewable licenses for LPFM stations.

130. Section 73.1020(a) divides the

country into 18 different regions

containing one or more states for

purposes of establishing synchronized

schedules for radio and television

licenses. Radio station licenses expired

under this rule in intervals between

October 1, 1995, and August 1, 1998,

and those licenses, renewed for eight

years, will expire again between

September 30, 2003, and July 31, 2006.

We consistently grant initial terms for

all new broadcast authorizations to fit

into this synchronized schedule,

although it means initial terms are

usually for a period of less than eight

years.

131. We adopt these synchronized

schedules for LPFM licenses because

maintaining the predictability,

administrative efficiencies, public

awareness, and fairness inherent in the

existing synchronized schedule of

license cycles serves the public interest.

Accordingly, an initial LPFM license

granted within any renewal period set

forth in § 73.1020 of our rules will be

assigned the expiration date assigned to

those full-power FM stations licensed in

the same region during the same

licensing cycle. Because of the cyclical

nature of this process, granting initial

full eight-year license terms in the

middle of a licensing cycle could

undermine the synchronization of the

whole process. Like full-power licenses,

LPFM licenses may then be renewed for

a term not to exceed eight years from the

expiration date of the preceding license.

This approach will reduce the

regulatory burden on LPFM

broadcasters by affording them the same

maximum license terms now granted

other broadcasters, and will

correspondingly reduce the associated

burdens on the Commission. We see no

compelling reason to vary from the term

set by Congress for full-power stations.

We further note that, while we will

authorize eight-year license terms, the

public may scrutinize station

performance and file complaints with

the Commission at any time during the

term of an LPFM license.

132. The one exception to this rule

pertains to situations where we grant

successive license terms under the final

tiebreaker procedures. These tiebreaker

licenses will not be based on the

synchronized licensing cycle of

§ 73.1020. If applicants were granted

last resort tiebreaker licenses conformed

to the synchronized schedule, each

licensee, depending on where in the

renewal cycle we were, might receive

authorizations to operate for a very short

period of time, e.g., a few months, with

no opportunity to renew their license.

133. We will also extend the renewal

expectancy provisions of section

309(k)(1) of the Act to LPFM licensees.

Providing incumbents with the

likelihood of renewal encourages

licensees to make investments to ensure

quality service. Upon receiving an

application for renewal of an LPFM

license, we will determine whether the

licensee has served the public interest,

convenience, and necessity; whether

there have been any serious violations

of the Act or Commission rules; and

whether there have been any serious

violations that, taken together, would

constitute a pattern of abuse. Only if

incumbent LPFM licensees fail to meet

these requirements will other applicants

be eligible to apply for the same license.

As noted, an exception is where the

license is held for successive terms as a

result of the final tiebreaker procedure.

Such licenses will be nonrenewable.

5. Transferability

134. Background. In the NPRM, we

noted that some commenters urged us to

restrict the sale of LPFM stations to

deter the filing of speculative

applications and trafficking in

construction permits. We stated our

belief that, in light of the limits we

proposed on ownership of LPFM

stations, we did not believe that it was

necessary to restrict the sale of any class

of LPFM station. We invited

commenters to address this issue,

including whether restrictions on sales

would be advisable if the Commission

7634 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

adopts ownership rules other than those

proposed in the NPRM.

135. Comments. While comments on

the transferability of LPFM stations

were mixed, the majority of commenters

that addressed this issue supported

either prohibiting transfers altogether or

severely restricting them. A few

commenters were in favor of permitting

transferability of LPFM stations, arguing

generally that owners who have

invested in such stations should be able

to realize the fair market value of such

stations.

136. Decision. After careful review of

the comments, we have decided to

prohibit the transfer of construction

permits and licenses for LPFM stations.

Contrary to our initial view stated in the

NPRM, we are persuaded that a

prohibition on transfers will best

promote the Commission’s interest in

ensuring that spectrum is used for low

power operations as soon as possible,

without the delay associated with

license speculation. We are also

persuaded that the goals of this new

service, to foster opportunities for new

radio broadcast ownership and to

promote additional diversity in radio

voices and program services, will best

be met if unused permits and licenses

are returned to the Commission. Given

the modest facilities and

noncommercial nature of LPFM

stations, we do not believe nontransferability will discourage LPFM

licensees from serving their listeners.

G. Programming and Service Rules

1. Public Interest Requirements

137. Background. In the NPRM, we

proposed to require LP1000 licensees to

adhere to the same part 73 requirements

regarding public interest programming

as apply to full-power FM licensees. We

noted that this meant that each LP1000

licensee would be required to air

programming serving the needs and

interests of its community, using its

discretion as to how to meet that

obligation. We also listed several other

rules, such as those regarding the

broadcasting of taped, filmed, or

recorded material, sponsorship

identification, personal attacks, and

periodic call sign announcements and

sought comment on whether they

should apply to LPFM stations. We

stated a disinclination, however, to

impose public interest programming

requirements on LP100 and LP10

licensees, given the size of operations

we envisioned and the simplicity we

were striving to achieve in this service.

We expected that the very nature of

LP100 and LP10 would ensure that they

served the needs and interests of their

communities.

138. Comments. We received few

comments on public interest

requirements. Some commenters

contend that we must apply all of the

same basic public interest requirements

to LPFM licensees that are applied to

full-power broadcasters. Other

commenters oppose any requirements

for LP100 and LP10 stations, arguing

that it would place an unreasonable

burden on those stations.

139. Decision. Every broadcast

licensee is required to operate its station

in the public interest. Given the nature

of the LPFM service, however, we

conclude that certain obligations

imposed on full-power radio licensees

would be unnecessary if applied to

LPFM licensees. We expect that the

local nature of this service, coupled

with the eligibility and selection criteria

we are adopting, will ensure that LPFM

licensees will meet the needs and

interests of their communities. Thus, for

example, consistent with our rules for

low power television, we will not adopt

a rule requiring LPFM licensees to

provide programming responsive to

community issues or to maintain a list

of issues addressed or specific programs

aired.

140. We will, however, apply certain

specific rules applicable to all

broadcasters to LPFM licensees. First,

LPFM operators must, of course, comply

with those rules required by statute.

Thus, for example, like all broadcasters,

LPFM licensees will be expressly

prohibited from airing programming

that is obscene, and restricted from

airing programming that is ‘‘indecent’’

during certain times of the day. They

must also comply with our sponsorship

identification and political

programming rules. In addition, we will

require LPFM licensees to comply with

our rules regarding taped, filmed, or

recorded material, personal attacks, and

periodic call sign announcements.

Violation of any of these rules by an

LPFM licensee would be as detrimental

to its audience as violation by a fullpower broadcaster, and widespread

disregard for these rules could outweigh

the benefits to the public this service is

intended to bring.

2. Locally Originated Programming

141. Background. In the NPRM, we

sought comment on whether to impose

a minimum local origination

programming requirement on any of the

three proposed classes of LPFM service.

We opined that listeners benefit from

local programming, because it often

reflects needs, interests, circumstances,

or perspectives that may be unique to

that community. We also noted that

many of LPFM’s initial supporters

argued that the Commission’s rules

should actively promote locally oriented

programming by, for instance, limiting

the amount of network programming a

station could air. We expressed an

expectation, however, that a significant

amount of programming for LPFM

stations would be locally produced as a

matter of course. We also asserted that

programming does not have to be locally

produced to have interest or value to the

listeners in a particular locale.

Accordingly, we stated that we were

inclined to give LP100 and LP10

licensees the same discretion as fullpower licensees to determine what mix

of local and non-local programming

would best serve the community. To

promote new broadcast voices, however,

we proposed that an LPFM station not

be permitted to operate as a translator,

retransmitting the programming of a

full-power station.

142. Comments. Many commenters

favor the adoption of a locally

originated programming obligation. A

number of commenters oppose any

specific obligations on LPFM licensees

regarding locally originated

programming. Commenters generally

agree that LFPM stations should not be

used as translators for retransmitting

full-power station programming.

143. Decision. We continue to believe

that LPFM licensees’ provision of a

significant amount of locally originated

programming will enhance the success

of this service. This is why we are

encouraging the provision of locally

originated programming by means of a

licensing preference. However, we also

believe that in certain cases,

programming need not be locally

originated to be responsive to local

needs. Therefore, we do not believe it is

necessary to impose specific

requirements for locally originated

programming on LPFM licensees. We

believe that the nature of the service,

combined with the eligibility criteria

and preferences we are adopting, will

ensure that LPFM licensees provide

locally originated programming or

programming that is otherwise

responsive to local needs.

144. We do, however, agree with

commenters that LPFM stations should

not be used for retransmitting, either

terrestrially or via satellite, the

programming of full-power stations.

This would significantly undercut a

fundamental basis for the establishment

of this service. This prohibition against

LPFM stations operating as translators

also promotes locally originated

programming by eliminating a

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7635

significant avenue for obtaining nonlocally originated programming.

3. Political Programming Rules

145. Background. In the NPRM, we

sought comment on the applicability of

political programming rules to each

class of low power radio service that we

might adopt. We explained that sections

312(a)(7) and 315 of the

Communications Act, as amended,

underlie some of these rules, and each

is explicitly applicable to ‘‘broadcast

stations.’’ Thus, we lack the discretion

not to apply these provisions to any

class of LPFM station, regardless of size.

We specifically sought comment on how

each of these political broadcasting

rules should be applied to low-power

stations, taking into consideration our

statutory mandate.

146. Comments. The few comments

that we received on this issue support

our tentative conclusion to adopt

political programming rules for LPFM

stations.

147. Decision. We conclude that we

are required by statute to apply the same

political programming rules to lowpower stations that we apply to fullpower stations. There is ample

precedent for how the political

programming rules apply to

noncommercial stations and thus how

the rules will apply to LPFM. For

example, section 312(a)(7) of the

Communications Act, as amended,

requires broadcasters to allow legally

qualified candidates for federal office

reasonable access to their facilities, but

because LPFM stations are

noncommercial educational facilities,

they must provide such access on a free

basis. Section 315(a) of the

Communications Act, as amended,

requiring equal opportunities for

candidates, will also apply.

148. In conformance with the

statutory mandate, we will apply the

reasonable access and equal

opportunities provisions of the statute

and the Commission’s rules, as well as

related policies delineated in prior

Commission orders, to LPFM licensees.

With respect to reasonable access, the

Commission’s policy has generally been

to defer to the reasonable, good faith

judgment of licensees as to what

constitutes ‘‘reasonable access’’ under

all the circumstances present in a

particular case. Noncommercial

educational stations, including LPFM

stations, however, may not support or

oppose any candidate for political

office. LPFM licensees cannot charge

legally qualified candidates for the time

used on their stations and no LPFM

licensee may discriminate among

candidates ‘‘in practices, regulations,

facilities, or services’’ or ‘‘make or give

any preference to any candidate for

public office.’’ In addition, we will

require LPFM licensees to maintain a

political file, if needed, to record the

requisite particulars. The political file

shall be maintained for public

inspection at an accessible place in the

station’s community. Finally, we will

resolve any issues involving LPFM

licensees on a case-by-case basis to

determine whether the licensee is acting

within the spirit of the statute and

Commission rules and policies on

political programming.

4. Station Identification

149. Background. In the NPRM, we

sought comment on whether to adopt a

call sign system that would identify a

low power radio station as such. We

noted in the NPRM that a nonstandard

(five letter) identifying call sign system

was used for the first several years of

licensing low power television (LPTV)

stations, but that the Commission later

allowed LPTV stations to adopt call

signs that were like those of full power

stations, but were appended with the

suffix ‘‘–LP.’’

150. Comments. Commenters are

divided over whether it would be in the

public interest to employ special call

signs that would help identify LPFM

stations as low power. Some

commenters argue that the use of call

signs would help to identify legitimate

from illegal stations, or help with the

identification of malfunctioning or

interfering stations. Other commenters

feel that a new system of call signs for

LPFM would be confusing to the public,

with little or no compensating public

benefit, and suggest that ordinary FM

call signs be issued to new LPFM

stations. Some commenters also argue

that the use of call signs for low power

broadcasters would not be burdensome

to these broadcasters.

151. Decision. The question raised by

the NPRM was not whether to have call

signs for LPFM stations, as apparently

misunderstood by some commenters,

but whether to include a special

designation in the call signs identifying

LPFM stations as low power stations. It

is imperative for a variety of reasons,

including enforcement, convenience to

the public, and conformance with

international agreements, that all

broadcasters, including low power

broadcasters, use unique identifiers on

the air. We also conclude that it will be

extremely beneficial for LPFM operators

to build an ‘‘identity’’ and do so in a

radio-familiar manner. We were guided

on this issue by our experience with low

power television. In that service, we

require stations’ call signs to indicate

that they are low power stations, by

appending the suffix ‘‘–LP’’ to their

four-letter call signs. We thus will

require low power stations to positively

identify themselves. To avoid confusion

for the public and to inform the public

of the reasonable expectations they may

have for service, the suffix ‘‘–LP’’ will

be appended to LPFM station call signs

(e.g., ‘‘WXYZ–LP’’). Such identification

will inform the public that a station is

a low power station. An LPFM fourletter call sign cannot exactly duplicate

the call sign of any other broadcast

station and cannot contain the same first

four letters as another station’s call sign

without that station’s written consent.

The Commission’s current call sign

system will be modified to

accommodate low power stations in the

manner four letter call signs are

provided to low power TV stations.

5. Operating Hours

152. Background. In the NPRM, we

said we were not inclined to adopt

minimum operating hours for LP100 or

LP10 stations. However, we expressed

our concern that spectrum might be

underutilized if low power stations

were licensed but unused or underused,

and asked for comments on this issue.

153. Comments. For LP100 and LP10

services, commenters either argue for:

(1) low or no minimum operating hours,

because of the cost burden involved in

requiring extended hours of operations,

or (2) a time sharing arrangement among

local broadcasters. This latter group of

commenters argue that time sharing

arrangements would reduce the parttime warehousing of spectrum that

would occur by a single non full-time

licensee, and would permit the entry of

additional new voices into the local

radio market.

154. Decision. In order to ensure an

effective utilization of channels, we will

impose the same minimum operating

hour requirements on LP100 and LP10

FM stations that we currently apply to

full-power noncommercial educational

FM stations. Under our rules, ‘‘[a]ll

noncommercial educational FM stations

are required to 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, stations licensed

to educational institutions are not

required to operate on Saturday or

Sunday * * *’’ These requirements are

not extensive and should not impose an

inordinate burden on LPFM licensees.

In cases where individual parties are

interested in applying for LP100 and

LP10 stations but do not have sufficient

programming to meet the minimum

operating hour requirements, we

encourage those parties to find other

7636 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

applicants with whom they could share

the license. To accommodate those

situations in which the demand for

airtime does not exceed the spectrum

availability, however, we will not

automatically delete a station that is

operating at less than the minimum

hours. When another applicant comes

forward that wants to utilize the

underused channel, that applicant can

notify the Commission of the

incumbent’s failure to meet minimum

hours and demand that the incumbent

return its license or agree to a timesharing arrangement that will

accommodate both parties.

6. Main Studio Rule, Public File Rule

and Ownership Reporting Requirements

155. Background. In the NPRM, we

invited comment on whether LPFM

stations of each class should be subject

to the variety of other rules in part 73

with which full power stations must

comply, including, for example, the

main studio rule (47 CFR 73.1125(a)),

public file rule (47 CFR 73.3526 and

73.3527), and the periodic ownership

reporting requirements (47 CFR

73.3615). Given the purposes and power

levels of LP1000 stations, we tentatively

concluded that LP1000 licensees should

generally meet the part 73 rules

applicable to full power FM stations.

However, the NPRM sought comment on

whether sufficient useful purpose

would be served in applying each rule

to these licensees. We were disinclined

to apply these service rules to LP10

stations, and sought comment with

regard to the rules appropriate for LP100

stations.

156. We also proposed to treat low

power radio stations like full power

stations for the purposes of our

environmental rules and responsibilities

under the National Environmental

Protection Act. With respect to

protection against exposure to radio

frequency radiation, we noted that

LP1000 and LP100 stations would

operate at the power levels of some

Class A FM stations and thus the same

safety and environmental concerns

would seem to apply. We therefore

proposed to apply to these stations the

maximum permissible exposure limits

and related regulatory provisions that

apply to FM radio stations. We invited

comment on this matter, and

specifically on whether and how we

should treat LP100 stations differently

from LP1000 stations and, if so, why.

We also sought comment on how our

environmental rules should apply to

LP10 stations, if this low power radio

class were adopted.

157. Comments. Comments were

divided on this issue. Most broadcasters

who commented on this issue agree that

LPFM stations should generally follow

existing regulations for full-power

stations, but some note that they should

only have minimal day-to-day

regulatory requirements because of the

difficulty of survival if such stations had

to follow the exact rules that full-power

stations are required to follow. Many

other commenters state that the

Commission should not require LPFM

stations to comply with a main studio,

public file or ownership reporting

requirement, because of the burdens

they would impose.

158. Decision. We conclude that we

should not impose the main studio,

public file, or ownership reporting

requirements on LPFM stations. We

believe these requirements would place

an undue burden on such small

noncommercial educational stations. In

addition, we believe that the nature of

this service will ensure that LPFM

stations are responsive to their

communities. This approach is

consistent with our treatment of low

power television stations.

159. As to equal employment

opportunity (EEO) rules, we conclude

that all LPFM licensees must comply

with the Commission’s long-standing

prohibition against employment

discrimination. We believe that a

finding that any broadcaster has

engaged in employment discrimination

raises a serious question as to its

character qualifications to be a

Commission licensee. In addition to the

prohibition against discrimination, the

broadcast EEO Rule also includes EEO

program requirements. These

requirements are not currently in force.

In any event, we did not enforce

compliance with the EEO program

requirements by broadcast stations with

fewer than five full-time employees.

Because we anticipate that the vast

majority of this class of licensees will

employ very few (if any) full-time, paid

employees, we do not intend to require

LPFM licensees to comply with any

EEO program requirements we adopt in

our pending rulemaking proceeding.

7. Construction Permits

160. Background. In the NPRM, the

Commission proposed an 18-month

construction period for LP100 stations

and a twelve-month limit for LP10

stations. The shorter construction time

limits for LP100 and LP10 stations

(relative to the three-year construction

period that is allowed to full-power FM

stations) were meant to reflect the

simpler construction requirements for

these facilities. The 18- and 12-month

periods also assumed that difficulties

with obtaining the requisite

construction permits would be minimal.

161. Comments. Many commenters

state that the proposed construction

periods for LP100 and LP10 stations are

reasonable, given the relatively smaller

facilities and simpler construction

involved with these stations. Other

commenters argue for even shorter

construction periods for LP100 and

micro-radio services. Some commenters

thought that imposing strict

construction time limits would help to

prevent spectrum hoarding and help

encourage the rapid deployment of the

spectrum resources.

162. Decision. We will adopt an 18-

month construction period for both

LP10 and LP100 services, and it will be

strictly enforced. While we believe that

most permittees will be able to and will

have ample incentive to construct their

low power stations in far less than 18

months, given the relative technical

simplicity of LP100 and LP10 stations,

we do not wish to burden applicants

who may encounter unforeseen

difficulties with a shorter construction

period. We recognize that while the

facilities themselves will be relatively

easy to construct, zoning and permitting

processes may, in some cases, delay

construction. However, we expect that

applicants will have well-considered

proposals in this regard and we do not

intend to grant extensions to the

construction permits. Therefore, to

avoid the complications and delays of

extension rulings, as well as to

encourage well-planned and executed

proposals, we have allowed what we

consider to be more than ample time for

permittees to complete construction and

begin operation, and we expect to see

many stations in operation long before

the allowed 18 months.

8. Emergency Alert System

163. Background. In the NPRM, we

proposed to treat LP1000 facilities like

full-power FM stations for the purposes

of the Emergency Alert System (EAS).

We explained that, in this way, we

would expect to avoid having

significant numbers of people deprived

of this critical information resource. By

contrast, because of their extremely

small coverage areas and

correspondingly sized audiences, as

well as their limited resources, we

proposed that LP10 stations, if

authorized, not be required to

participate in the EAS. We sought

comment on these proposals and also on

how LP100 stations, with their

intermediate size and audience reach,

should fit into the EAS structure.

164. Comments. Some commenters

argue that compliance should not be

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7637

required for LP100 or LP10 stations

because small operations and coverage

areas make compliance unnecessary and

too expensive; stations other than LP100

and LP10 stations can take on the role

of alerting the community to

emergencies; the short range and

secondary status of LP100 stations make

them unsuitable for emergency message

propagation; and removing LP100

stations from the air during national

emergencies would help prevent

interference during such crisis times.

Other commenters suggest that EAS be

required only under certain

circumstances. A few commenters

provide suggestions on how to

overcome the expense involved in EAS

participation. Other commenters stress

the importance of participation in EAS

by all broadcast stations.

165. Decision. We conclude that

LPFM stations should be required to

participate in the EAS structure, but in

a modified way. Our requirements will

balance the cost of compliance, the

ability of stations to meet that cost, and

the needs of the listening public to be

alerted in emergency situations. LPFM

licensees will be able to satisfy our EAS

requirements if they install and operate

Commission-certified decoding

equipment, which will alert station

personnel to emergency alerts. Once

that decoding equipment is installed,

station personnel must pass any

national emergency audio message on to

listeners as prescribed in our rules. As

is the case for full service broadcasters,

LPFM participation at the state and

local levels will be on a voluntary basis.

166. The EAS is composed of several

entities, including FM broadcast

stations, LPTV stations, and cable

systems operating on an organized basis

at the national, state, and local levels.

The EAS alert is designed to make

viewers and listeners aware of

emergencies that may affect them so that

they may take appropriate protective

action or seek additional information.

Though the arguments of financial

hardship for LPFM licensees to

implement the EAS are well taken, alert

messages are potentially important to all

listeners and viewers, and commenters

do not persuade us that the LPFM

stations should, as a class, be exempted

from this important public safety

function. We will, however, minimize

the cost of effective participation for

LPFM licensees. Accordingly, we

amend § 11.11(a) to include LPFM

stations in the list of the EAS entities.

We also amend the Broadcast Station

Timetable of § 11.11(a) to set out the

requirements for LPFM.

167. While we will require EAS

participation, we will exempt LPFM

stations from purchasing some of the

EAS equipment required for other

participants under our rules. In general,

EAS equipment must be able to perform

the functions described in all of our

rules regulating EAS. However, we

relaxed some of these requirements for

Class D noncommercial educational FM

and LPTV stations. Because LPFM

stations will also provide service to

small audiences, we exempt LPFM

stations from the requirement to install

and operate encoders. We believe that

the cost to LPFM licensees of installing

and operating both encoding and

decoding equipment outweighs the

benefits that these small stations could

provide to the public.

168. While we are not requiring LPFM

stations to install encoding equipment,

all LPFM stations are required to use

decoding equipment that notifies the

station in case of any emergency. We

recognize that there will be costs

associated with EAS decoders, but

believe the costs are justified. Current

Commission-certified integrated

encoder/decoder equipment costs

$1,500 or more depending on the

options a station wants to install. We

note that today’s manufacturers only

produce certified encoders and decoders

as integrated units, as that is the only

demand that exists. Noncertified

decoding equipment, however, is

currently available and is advertised in

some places for as little as $650. Thus,

it appears that Commission-certified

decoding equipment should be available

for well under $1000 and should be able

to reach the market in the near future.

Accordingly, we will require the use of

Commission-certified EAS decoders or

decoder/encoders by all LPFM stations

when they commence operations. It will

be several months before the first LPFM

stations are on the air. Given that

decoders are already on the market, this

should be ample time to obtain

Commission certification and make

certified units available for purchase. If

certified decoder equipment is not

available at that time, we can grant a

temporary exemption for LPFM stations

until such time as it is reasonably

available. Once the licensee has

installed decoding equipment, if the

station is on the air at the time it

receives a national emergency alert

message, station personnel must pass

the information along to listeners.

169. Finally, we will continue to grant

waivers of EAS requirements to

broadcasters, including LPFM licensees,

on a case-by-case basis in appropriate

circumstances upon a sufficient

showing of need. As we outlined in the

EAS First Report and Order, the waiver

request must contain at least the

following: (1) Justification for waiver,

with reference to the particular rule

sections for which a waiver is sought;

(2) information about the financial

status of the entity, such as a balance

sheet and income statement for up to

the previous two years (audited, if

possible); (3) the number of other

entities that serve the requesting entity’s

coverage area and that have or are

expected to install EAS equipment; and

(4) the likelihood (such as proximity or

frequency) of hazardous risks to the

requesting entity’s audience.

III. Conclusion

170. In this final rule, we set the stage

for a new dimension in radio

broadcasting, creating additional,

affordable outlets for the expression of

views and the provision of information

and entertainment to local communities.

By limiting participants in this service

to noncommercial, educational

organizations, we hope to ensure that

this service will meet needs unmet by

the commercial radio service. Through

eligibility requirements, selection

preference factors, and the relatively

small range of LPFM stations, we hope

to create a service that will serve the

distinct needs of small local

communities. Mindful of the need to

protect the technical integrity of the

existing radio service and to preserve its

potential transition to digital service,

however, we are proceeding cautiously.

Accordingly, we are limiting radio

stations in the LPFM service to a

maximum of 100 watts. We are also

maintaining 2nd-adjacent channel

protection. Based on our engineers’

careful review of the technical data

submitted to the Commission, as well as

their own studies, we are confident that

any risk of interference is small and, on

balance, outweighed by the benefits this

new service will bring.

IV. Administrative Matters

171. Paperwork Reduction Act

Analysis. This Report and Order has

been analyzed with respect to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and

found to impose new or modified

reporting and recordkeeping

requirements or burdens on the public.

Implementation of these new or

modified reporting and recordkeeping

requirements will be subject to approval

by the Office of Management and

Budget as prescribed by the Act.

V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act

Analysis

172. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

was incorporated in the Notice of

7638 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The

Commission sought written public

comment on the proposals in the NPRM,

including comment on the IRFA. No

comments were received in response to

the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to

the RFA.

Need for and Objectives of the Report

and Order

173. The Commission received

petitions for rulemaking asking for the

creation of a low power radio service.

Because they raised similar or identical

issues, the Commission coordinated its

responses to them. The Commission

released public notices of its receipt of

three of the proposals and invited

public comment on them. In response to

significant public support, the

Commission released the NPRM to

propose a new, low power FM service.

174. In the Report and Order, the

Commission is adopting a 100-watt class

(LP100) and a 10-watt class (LP10).

Because of the predicted lower

construction and operational costs of

LPFM stations as opposed to full power

facilities, we expect that small entities

would be expected to have few

economic obstacles to becoming LPFM

licensees. Therefore, this new service

may serve as a vehicle for small entities

and under-represented groups

(including women and minorities) to

gain valuable broadcast experience and

to add their voices to their local

communities.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised

by Public Comments in Response to the

IRFA

175. No comments were received in

response to the IRFA.

Description and Estimate of the Number

of Small Entities to Which Rules Will

Apply

176. The RFA directs agencies to

provide a description of and, where

feasible, an estimate of the number of

small entities that will be affected by the

rules. The RFA generally defines the

term ‘‘small entity’’ as having the same

meaning as the terms ‘‘small 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). A

small organization is generally ‘‘any notfor-profit enterprise which is

independently owned and operated and

is not dominant in its field.’’

Nationwide, as of 1992, there were

approximately 275,801 small

organizations. ‘‘Small governmental

jurisdiction’’ generally means

‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns,

townships, villages, school districts, or

special districts, with a population of

less than 50,000.’’ The Census Bureau

estimates that this ratio is

approximately accurate for all

governmental entities. Thus, of the

85,006 governmental entities, we

estimate that 81,600 (91 per cent) are

small entities.

177. The Small Business

Administration defines a radio

broadcasting station that has $5 million

or less in annual receipts as a small

business. A radio broadcasting station is

an establishment primarily engaged in

broadcasting aural programs by radio to

the public. Included in this industry are

commercial, religious, educational, and

other radio stations. The 1992 Census

indicates that 96 percent (5,861 of

6,127) radio station establishments

produced less than $5 million in

revenue in 1992. Official Commission

records indicate that 11,334 individual

radio stations were operating in 1992.

As of December 31, 1998, Commission

records indicate that 12,615 radio

stations were operating, of which 7,832

were FM stations.

178. The rules will apply to a new

category of FM radio broadcasting

service. It is not known how many

entities that may seek to obtain a low

power radio license. Nor do we know

how many of these entities will be small

entities. We note, however, that in the

year since we issued the NPRM, the

Commission’s LPFM website has

received approximately 100,000 hits,

demonstrating the interest of

individuals and groups in operating

such a facility. In addition, we expect

that, due to the small size of low power

FM stations, small entities would

generally have a greater interest than

large ones in acquiring them.

Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

179. The Commission is creating a

new broadcasting service that may allow

hundreds or thousands of small entities

to become broadcast licensees for the

first time. This endeavor will require the

collection of information for the

purposes of processing applications for

(among other things) initial construction

permits, assignments and transfers, and

renewals. We will also require lower

power radio stations to comply with

some of the reporting, recordkeeping,

and other compliance requirements as

full power radio broadcasters.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

180. The RFA requires agencies to

describe any significant alternatives that

it has considered in reaching its

proposed approach, which may include

the following four alternatives: (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.

181. The LP100 and LP10 services are

likely to create significant opportunities

for new small businesses. In addition,

the Commission has taken steps to

minimize the impact on existing small

broadcasters.

182. Creating New Opportunities for

Small Businesses. The Report and Order

adopts a number of rules designed to

help small businesses obtain and retain

LP100 and LP10 licenses. These include

ownership rules, and exemptions from

mandatory electronic filing and main

studio requirements.

183. The Report and Order adopts

ownership rules to assist small entities

acquire or construct LPFM stations.

Parties with attributable interests in any

full power broadcast facilities are not

eligible to have any ownership interest

in any low power radio stations; this

prevents large group owners (or even

large single-station owners) from

constructing and operating LPFM

facilities that might otherwise be

available to small entities. The local and

national ownership restrictions of one

station per community and, initially,

one station, and ultimately, 10 stations,

nationwide are intended to ensure that

ample LPFM stations are available for

small entities. However, the ownership

rules also prohibit small entity full

power broadcasters from acquiring

LPFM licenses.

184. The Report and Order also

modifies the application of some of our

programming and service requirements

for LPFM stations. Full power and

LPFM stations alike are required to

maintain a public file that includes their

authorizations, issues and programming

lists, and political files. However, unlike

full power stations which must create

quarterly issues and programming lists

and maintain a main studio with a staff

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7639

presence, LPFM stations must generate

only annual issues and programming

lists, and need not maintain a main

studio, and so may operate out of even

a private residence. In addition, while

full power and LPFM stations both must

participate in the Emergency Alert

System (EAS) and have decoding

equipment, LPFM stations need not

purchase encoding equipment. These

exemptions from and modifications of

the application of the Commission’s

programming and service requirements

to LPFM stations will reduce

administrative burdens and costs for

small business licensees.

185. The Report and Order also

adopts filing requirements that should

help small businesses. Although the

NPRM proposed to mandate electronic

filing for LPFM stations, the Report and

Order declined to do so for the first

round of LP100 applications. The

Commission made this decision because

it recognized that there might be a

disparity between applicants for LP100

licenses in terms of computer resources

and skills. This result should help small

businesses without more advanced

technological resources still

participation in the LP100 application

process. The Report and Order adopts a

window filing process, as opposed to a

first-come, first-served process; some

commenters claimed that the latter

process would favor applicants with

superior financial and technical

resources.

186. Minimizing Impact on Existing

Small Business Broadcast Stations. The

Report and Order has also adopted an

alternative that will minimize the

impact on existing small business

broadcast stations. LP100 and LP10

stations will be noncommercial,

educational stations, and so will not

compete with small business

commercial broadcasters for advertising

revenue.

Report to Congress

187. The Commission will send a

copy of the Report and Order, including

this FRFA, in a report to be sent to

Congress pursuant to the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In

addition, the Commission will send a

copy of the Report and Order, including

the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration. A copy of the Report

and Order and FRFA (or summaries

thereof) will also be published in the

Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).

VI. Ordering Clauses

188. Accordingly, pursuant to

authority contained in sections 1, 4(i),

303 of the Communications Act of 1934,

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303,

part 73 of the Commission’s rules, 47

CFR part 73, is amended.

189. The amendments shall be

effective April 17, 2000.

190. The Commission’s Consumer

Information Bureau, Reference

Information Center, shall send a copy of

this Report and Order, including the

Final Regulatory Flexibility Act

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the

Small Business Administration.

191. This proceeding is terminated.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 11

Emergency alert system.

47 CFR Part 73 and Part 74

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Rule Changes

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble parts 11, 73 and 74 of Title 47

of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

is amended to read as follows:

PART 11—EMERGENCY ALERT

SYSTEM (EAS)

1. The authority citation for part 11

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o),

303(r), 544(g) and 606.

2. Section 11.11 is amended by:

(1) Adding in paragraph (a) the words

‘‘Low Power FM (LPFM)’’ in the first

sentence after the word ‘‘FM’’.

(2) Revising the table ‘‘Timetable

Broadcast Stations’’.

(3) Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (b).

3. The amendments are to read as

follows:

§ 11.11 The Emergency Alert System

(EAS).

* * * * *

TIMETABLE—BROADCAST STATIONS

Requirement AM&FM TV FM Class

D LPTV LPFM 1

Two-tone encoder 2 3 .......................................................................................... Y Y N N N

Two-tone decoder 4 5 .......................................................................................... YYYYN

EAS decoder ...................................................................................................... Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y 1/197 Y

EAS encoder ...................................................................................................... Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 N N N

Audio message .................................................................................................. Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y

Video message .................................................................................................. NA Y 1/1/97 N/A Y 1/1/97 N/A

1 LPTV stations that operate as television broadcast translator stations are exempt from the requirement to have EAS equipment.

2Effective July 1, 1995, the two-tone signal must be 8–25 seconds.

3Effective January 1, 1998, the two-tone signal may only be used to provide audio alerts to audiences before EAS emergency messages and

the required monthly tests. 4Effective July 1, 1995, the two-tone decoder must respond to two-tone signals of 3–4 seconds duration.

5Effective January 1, 1998, the two-tone decoder will no longer be used.

* * * * *

(b) Class D noncommercial

educational FM stations as defined in

§ 73.506, LPFM stations as defined in

§§ 73.811 and 73.853, and LPTV stations

as defined in § 74.701(f) are not required

to comply with § 11.32. * * *

* * * * *

4. Section 11.51 (e) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 11.51 EAS code and Attention Signal

Transmission requirements.

* * * * *

(e) Class D non-commercial

educational FM stations as defined in

§ 73.506 of this chapter, Low Power FM

(LPFM) stations as defined in §§ 73.811

and 73.853 of this chapter, and low

power TV (LPTV) stations as defined in

§ 74.701(f) of this chapter are not

required to have equipment capable of

generating the EAS codes and Attention

Signal specified in § 11.31.

* * * * *

5. Section 11.53(a)(3) is revised to

read as follows:

7640 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§ 11.53 Dissemination of Emergency

Action Notification.

(a) * * *

(3) Wire services to all subscribers

(AM, FM, low power FM (LPFM), TV,

LPTV and other stations).

* * * * *

6. Section 11.61 is amended by

revising the last sentence of paragraph

(a)(1)(v) and revising paragraph

(a)(2)(iii) to read as follows:

§ 11.61 Tests of EAS procedures.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(v) * * * Class D non-commercial

educational FM, LPFM and LPTV

stations are required to transmit only

the test script.

(2) * * *

(iii) Class D non-commercial

educational FM, LPFM and LPTV

stations are not required to transmit this

test but must log receipt.

* * * * *

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: (47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.)

2. Section 73.209 is amended by

adding paragraph (c) to read, as follows:

§ 73.209 Protection from interference.

* * * * *

(c) Permittees and licensees of FM

stations are not protected from

interference which may be created by

the grant of a new LPFM station or of

authority to modify an existing LPFM

station, except in instances where the

FM station would receive predicted

interference from an LPFM station

within the FM station’s 3.16 mV/m (70

dBu) contour.

3. Section 73.508 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 73.508 Standards of good engineering

practice.

(a) All noncommercial educational

stations and LPFM stations operating

with more than 10 watts transmitter

power output shall be subject to all of

the provisions of the FM Technical

Standards contained in subpart B of this

part. Class D educational stations and

LPFM stations operating with 10 watts

or less transmitter output power shall be

subject to the definitions contained in

§ 73.310, and also to those other

provisions of the FM Technical

Standards which are specifically made

applicable to them by the provisions of

this subpart.

(b) The transmitter and associated

transmitting equipment of each

noncommercial educational FM station

and LPFM station licensed for

transmitter power output above 10 watts

must be designed, constructed and

operated in accordance with § 73.317.

(c) The transmitter and associated

transmitting equipment of each

noncommercial educational FM station

licensed for transmitter power output of

10 watts or less, although not required

to meet all requirements of § 73.317,

must be constructed with the safety

provisions of the current national

electrical code as approved by the

American National Standards Institute.

These stations must be operated, tuned,

and adjusted so that emissions are not

radiated outside the authorized band

causing or which are capable of causing

interference to the communications of

other stations. The audio distortion,

audio frequency range, carrier hum,

noise level, and other essential phases

of the operation which control the

external effects, must be at all times

capable of providing satisfactory

broadcast service. Studio equipment

properly covered by an underwriter’s

certificate will be considered as

satisfying safety requirements.

4. Section 73.514 is added to read as

follows:

§ 73.514 Protection from interference.

Permittees and licensees of NCE FM

stations are not protected from

interference which may be created by

the grant of a new LPFM station or of

authority to modify an existing LPFM

station, except in instances where the

NCE FM station would receive

interference from an LPFM station

within the 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour.

5. Subpart G of part 73 is revised to

read as follows:

Subpart G—Low Power FM Broadcast

Stations (LPFM)

Sec.

73.801 Broadcast regulations applicable to

LPFM stations.

73.805 Availability of channels.

73.807 Minimum distance separation

between stations.

73.808 Distance computations.

73.809 Interference protection to full

service FM stations.

73.811 LPFM power and antenna height

requirements.

73.812 Rounding of power and antenna

heights.

73.813 Determination of antenna height

above average terrain (HAAT).

73.816 Antennas.

73.825 Protection to Reception of TV

Channel 6.

73.840 Operating power and mode

tolerances.

73.845 Transmission system operation.

73.850 Operating schedule.

73.853 Licensing requirements and service.

73.854 Unlicensed operations.

73.855 Ownership limits.

73.858 Attribution of LPFM station

interests.

73.860 Cross-ownership.

73.865 Assignment and transfer of LPFM

authorizations.

73.870 Processing of LPFM broadcast

station applications.

73.872 Selection procedure for mutually

exclusive LPFM applications.

73.873 LPFM license period.

73.875 Modification of transmission

systems.

73.877 Station logs for LPFM stations.

73.878 Station inspections by FCC;

availability to FCC of station logs and

records.

73.879 Signal retransmission.

73.881 Equal employment opportunities.

§ 73.801 Broadcast regulations applicable

to LPFM stations.

The following rules are applicable to

LPFM stations:

Section 73.201 Numerical definition of FM

broadcast channels.

Section 73.220 Restrictions on use of

channels.

Section 73.267 Determining operating

power.

Section 73.277 Permissible transmissions.

Section 73.297 FM stereophonic sound

broadcasting.

Section 73.310 FM technical definitions.

Section 73.312 Topographic data.

Section 73.318 FM blanketing interference.

Section 73.322 FM stereophonic sound

transmission standards.

Section 73.333 Engineering charts.

Section 73.503 Licensing requirements and

service.

Section 73.508 Standards of good

engineering practice.

Section 73.593 Subsidiary communications

services.

Section 73.1015 Truthful written statements

and responses to Commission inquiries

and correspondence.

Section 73.1030 Notifications concerning

interference to radio astronomy, research

and receiving installations.

Section 73.1201 Station identification.

Section 73.1206 Broadcast of telephone

conversations.

Section 73.1207 Rebroadcasts.

Section 73.1208 Broadcast of taped, filmed,

or recorded material.

Section 73.1210 TV/FM dual-language

broadcasting in Puerto Rico.

Section 73.1211 Broadcast of lottery

information.

Section 73.1212 Sponsorship identification;

list retention; related requirements.

Section 73.1213 Antenna structure, marking

and lighting.

Section 73.1216 Licensee-conducted

contests.

Section 73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes.

Section 73.1230 Posting of station license.

Section 73.1250 Broadcasting emergency

information.

Section 73.1300 Unattended station

operation.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7641

Section 73.1400 Transmission system

monitoring and control.

Section 73.1520 Operation for tests and

maintenance.

Section 73.1540 Carrier frequency

measurements.

Section 73.1545 Carrier frequency

departure tolerances.

Section 73.1570 Modulation levels: AM,

FM, and TV aural.

Section 73.1580 Transmission system

inspections.

Section 73.1610 Equipment tests.

Section 73.1620 Program tests.

Section 73.1650 International agreements.

Section 73.1660 Acceptability of broadcast

transmitters.

Section 73.1665 Main transmitters.

Section 73.1692 Broadcast station

construction near or installation on an

AM broadcast tower.

Section 73.1745 Unauthorized operation.

Section 73.1750 Discontinuance of

operation.

Section 73.1920 Personal attacks.

Section 73.1940 Legally qualified

candidates for public office.

Section 73.1941 Equal opportunities.

Section 73.1943 Political file.

Section 73.1944 Reasonable access.

Section 73.3511 Applications required.

Section 73.3512 Where to file; number of

copies.

Section 73.3513 Signing of applications.

Section 73.3514 Content of applications.

Section 73.3516 Specification of facilities.

Section 73.3517 Contingent applications.

Section 73.3518 Inconsistent or conflicting

applications.

Section 73.3519 Repetitious applications.

Section 73.3520 Multiple applications.

Section 73.3525 Agreements for removing

application conflicts.

Section 73.3539 Application for renewal of

license.

Section 73.3542 Application for emergency

authorization.

Section 73.3545 Application for permit to

deliver programs to foreign stations.

Section 73.3550 Requests for new or

modified call sign assignments.

Section 73.3561 Staff consideration of

applications requiring Commission

consideration.

Section 73.3562 Staff consideration of

applications not requiring action by the

Commission.

Section 73.3566 Defective applications.

Section 73.3568 Dismissal of applications.

Section 73.3584 Procedure for filing

petitions to deny.

Section 73.3587 Procedure for filing

informal objections.

Section 73.3588 Dismissal of petitions to

deny or withdrawal of informal

objections.

Section 73.3589 Threats to file petitions to

deny or informal objections.

Section 73.3591 Grants without hearing.

Section 73.3593 Designation for hearing.

Section 73.3598 Period of construction.

Section 73.3599 Forfeiture of construction

permit.

Section 73.3999 Enforcement of 18 U.S.C.

1464—restrictions on the transmission of

obscene and indecent material.

§ 73.805 Availability of channels.

Except as provided in § 73.220 of this

chapter, all of the frequencies listed in

§ 73.201 of this chapter are available for

LPFM stations.

§ 73.807 Minimum distance separation

between stations.

Minimum separation requirements for

LP100 and LP10 stations, as defined in

§ 73.811 and § 73.853 of this part, are

listed in the following paragraphs. An

LPFM station will not be authorized

unless these separations are met.

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. For

second-adjacent channels and IF

channels, the required minimum

distance separation is sufficient to avoid

interference received from other

stations.

(a) 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, timely filed applications

for new and existing FM stations,

authorized LP100 stations, LP100

station applications that were timelyfiled within a previous window, and

vacant FM allotments. LP100 stations

are not required to protect LP10

stations.

Station class

protected by LP100

Co-channel minimum separation

(km)

First-adjacent channel minimum

separation (km)

Second-adjacent channel

minimum

separation

(km)

required

I.F . Channel

minimum

separations

10.6 or 10.8

MHz Required

For no

interference

received

Required

For no

interference

received

LP100 ....................................................... 24 24 14 14 (1) (1)

D ............................................................... 24 24 13 13 6 4

A ............................................................... 67 92 56 56 29 7

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

C ............................................................... 130 203 120 142 93 28

1 None.

(b) An LP10 station will not be authorized unless the minimum distance separations are met with respect to authorized FM

stations, timely-filed applications for new and existing FM stations, vacant FM allotments, or LPFM stations.

Station class

protected by LP10

Co-channel minimum separation

(km)

First-adjacent channel minimum

separation (km)

Second-adjacent channel

minimum

separation

(km)

required

I.F . Channel

minimum

separations

10.6 or 10.8

MHz Required

For no

interference

received

required

for no

interference

received

LP100 ....................................................... 16 22 10 11 (1) (1)

LP10 ......................................................... 13 13 8 8 (1) (1)

D ............................................................... 16 21 10 11 6 2

A ............................................................... 59 90 53 53 29 5

B1 ............................................................. 77 117 70 70 45 8

B ............................................................... 99 141 91 91 66 11

C3 ............................................................. 69 117 64 64 39 8

7642 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Station class

protected by LP10

Co-channel minimum separation

(km)

First-adjacent channel minimum

separation (km)

Second-adjacent channel

minimum

separation

(km)

required

I.F . Channel

minimum

separations

10.6 or 10.8

MHz Required

For no

interference

received

required

for no

interference

received

C2 ............................................................. 82 141 77 81 52 11

C1 ............................................................. 103 175 97 108 73 18

C ............................................................... 122 201 116 140 92 26

1 None.

(c) In addition to meeting or exceeding the minimum separations for Class LP100 and Class LP10 stations in paragraphs (a)

and (b) of this section, new LP100 and LP10 stations will not be authorized in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands unless the minimum

distance separations are met with respect to authorized or proposed FM stations:

(1) LP100 STATIONS IN PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

Station class

protected by LP100

Co-channel minimum separation

(km)

First-adjacent channel minimum

separation (km)

Second-adjacent channel

minimum

separation

(km)

Required

I.F . Channel

minimum

separations

10.6 or 10.8

MHz Required

For no

interference

received

required

For no

interference

received

A ............................................................... 80 111 70 70 42 9

B1 ............................................................. 95 128 82 82 53 11

B ............................................................... 138 179 123 123 92 20

(2) LP10 Stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands:

Station class protected by LP10

Co-channel minimum separation

(km)

First-adjacent channel minimum

separation (km)

Second-adjacent channel

minimum

separation

(km)

required

I.F . Channel

minimum

separations

10.6 or 10.8

MHz Required

For no

interference

received

Required

For no

interference

received

A ............................................................... 72 108 66 66 42 8

B1 ............................................................. 84 125 78 78 53 9

B ............................................................... 126 177 118 118 92 18

Note to paragraphs (a), (b), and (c):

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 § 73.211(b)(1) or

§ 73.211(b)(3) shall be protected by LPFM

stations in accordance with the minimum

distance separations for the nearest class as

determined under § 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.

(d) In addition to meeting the

separations (a) through (c), LPFM

applications must meet the minimum

separation requirements 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:

(1) LP100 stations:

Distance to FM translator 60 dBu

contour

Co-channel minimum separation

(km)

First-adjacent channel minimum

separation (km) Second-adjacent channel

minimum

separation (km)

required

I.F . Channel

minimum

separation (km)

10.6 or 10.8

MHz Required

For no

interference

received

required

For no

interference

received

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) LP10 Stations:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7643

Distance to FM translator 60 dBu

contour

Co-channel minimum separation

(km)

First-adjacent channel minimum

separation (km) Second-adjacent channel

minimum

separation (km)

required

I.F . Channel

minimum

separation (km)

10.6 or 10.8

MHz Required

For no

interference

received

required

For no

interference

received

13.3 km or greater ....................... 30 65 25 33 20 3

Greater than 7.3 km, but less

than 13.3 km ............................ 24 49 18 23 14 3

7.3 km or less .............................. 18 28 12 14 8 3

(e) Existing Class LP100 and LP10 stations which do not meet the separations in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section may

be relocated provided that the separation to any short-spaced station is not reduced.

(f) 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.

(g) 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:

Canadian station class Co-channel (km)

Firstadjacent

channel (km)

Secondadjacent

channel (km)

Thirdadjacent

channel (km)

Intermediate

frequency

(IF) channel (km)

A1 ........................................................... 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 ............................................................ 118 106 99 98 28

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

stations:

Mexican station class Co-channel (km)

Firstadjacent

channel (km)

Second-/thirdadjacent

channel (km)

Intermediate

frequency (IF)

channel (km)

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

(3) Within 320 km of the Canadian border, LP10 stations must meet the following minimum separations with respect to any

Canadian stations:

Canadian station class Co-channel (km)

Firstadjacent

channel (km)

Secondadjacent

channel (km)

Thirdadjacent

channel (km)

Intermediate

frequency (IF)

channel (km)

A1 ........................................................... 33 25 23 19 3

A ............................................................. 53 45 43 39 5

B1 ........................................................... 65 57 55 51 8

B ............................................................. 79 71 70 66 11

C1 .......................................................... 101 93 91 87 18

C ............................................................ 108 102 100 97 26

(4) Within 320 km of the Mexican border, LP10 stations must meet the following separations with respect to any Mexican stations:

Mexican station class Co-channel (km)

Firstadjacent

channel (km)

Second-/thirdadjacent

channel (km)

Intermediate

frequency (IF)

channel (km)

A ............................................................................................... 34 29 24 5

AA ............................................................................................ 39 33 29 5

B1 ............................................................................................. 57 50 45 8

B ............................................................................................... 79 71 66 11

C1 ............................................................................................ 83 77 73 18

C .............................................................................................. 102 96 92 26

7644 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(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 may, at its

option, 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.

§ 73.808 Distance computations.

For the purposes of determining

compliance with any LPFM distance

requirements, distances shall be

calculated in accordance with

§ 73.208(c) of this part.

§ 73.809 Interference protection to full

service FM stations.

(a) It shall be the responsibility of the

licensee of an LPFM station to correct at

its expense any condition of

interference to the direct reception of

the signal of any subsequently

authorized commercial or NCE FM

station that operates on the same

channel, first-adjacent channel, secondadjacent channel or intermediate

frequency (IF) channels as the LPFM

station, where interference is predicted

to occur and actually occurs within the

3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour of such

stations. Predicted interference within

this contour shall be calculated in

accordance with the ratios set forth in

§ 73.215(a)(1) and (2) of this part. Actual

interference will be considered to occur

whenever reception of a regularly used

signal is impaired by the signals

radiated by the LPFM station.

(b) An LPFM station will be provided

an opportunity to demonstrate in

connection with the procession of the

commercial or NCE FM application that

interference with the 3.16 mV/m

contour of such station is unlikely. If the

LPFM station fails to so demonstrate, it

will be required to cease operations

upon the commencement of program

tests by the commercial or NCE FM

station.

(c) Complaints of actual interference

by an LPFM station subject to paragraph

(b) within the 3.16 mV/m contour of a

commercial or NCE FM station must be

served on the LPFM licensee and the

Federal Communications Commission,

attention Audio Services Division. The

LPFM station must suspend operations

within twenty-four hours of the receipt

of such complaint unless the

interference has been resolved to the

satisfaction of the complainant on the

basis of suitable techniques. An LPFM

station may only resume operations at

the direction of the Federal

Communications Commission. If the

Commission determines that the

complainant has refused to permit the

LPFM station to apply remedial

techniques that demonstrably will

eliminate the interference without

impairment of the original reception,

the licensee of the LPFM station is

absolved of further responsibility.

(d) It shall be the responsibility of the

licensee of an LPFM station to correct

any condition of interference that

results from the radiation of radio

frequency energy outside its assigned

channel. Upon notice by the FCC to the

station licensee or operator that such

interference is caused by spurious

emissions of the station, operation of the

station shall be immediately suspended

and not resumed until the interference

has been eliminated. However, short test

transmissions may be made during the

period of suspended operation to check

the efficacy of remedial measures.

(e) In each instance where suspension

of operation is required, the licensee

shall submit a full report to the FCC in

Washington, DC, after operation is

resumed, containing details of the

nature of the interference, the source of

the interfering signals, and the remedial

steps taken to eliminate the interference.

§ 73.811 LPFM power and antenna height

requirements.

(a) LP100 stations: (1) Maximum

facilities. LP100 stations will be

authorized to operate with maximum

facilities of 100 watts effective radiated

power (ERP) at 30 meters antenna height

above average terrain (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.

(b) LP10 stations: (1) Maximum

Facilities. LP10 stations will be

authorized to operate with maximum

facilities of 10 watts ERP at 30 meters

HAAT. An LP10 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 3.2 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

100 meters HAAT.

(2) Minimum Facilities. LP10 stations

may not operate with less than one watt

ERP.

§ 73.812 Rounding of power and antenna

heights.

(a) Effective radiated power (ERP) will

be rounded to the nearest watt on LPFM

authorizations.

(b) Antenna radiation center, antenna

height above average terrain (HAAT),

and antenna supporting structure height

will all be rounded to the nearest meter

on LPFM authorizations.

§ 73.813 Determination of antenna height

above average terrain (HAAT).

HAAT determinations for LPFM

stations will be made in accordance

with the procedure detailed in

§ 73.313(d) of this part.

§ 73.816 Antennas.

(a) Directional antennas will not be

authorized in the LPFM service.

(b) Permittees and licensees may

employ nondirectional antennas with

horizontal only polarization, vertical

only polarization, circular polarization

or elliptical polarization.

§ 73.825 Protection to Reception of TV

Channel 6.

LPFM stations will be authorized on

Channels 201 through 220 only if the

pertinent minimum separation distances

are met with respect to all TV Channel

6 stations.

FM Channel No.

Class LP100 to

TV Channel 6

(km)

Class LP10 to TV

Channel 6 (km)

201 ............................................................................................................................................................... 219 171

202 ............................................................................................................................................................... 204 162

203 ............................................................................................................................................................... 188 156

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7645

FM Channel No.

Class LP100 to

TV Channel 6

(km)

Class LP10 to TV

Channel 6 (km)

204 ............................................................................................................................................................... 179 153

205 ............................................................................................................................................................... 167 149

206 ............................................................................................................................................................... 156 143

207 ............................................................................................................................................................... 151 141

208 ............................................................................................................................................................... 151 141

209 ............................................................................................................................................................... 151 141

210 ............................................................................................................................................................... 151 141

211 ............................................................................................................................................................... 151 141

212 ............................................................................................................................................................... 149 140

213 ............................................................................................................................................................... 147 139

214 ............................................................................................................................................................... 145 138

215 ............................................................................................................................................................... 143 137

216 ............................................................................................................................................................... 142 136

217 ............................................................................................................................................................... 142 136

218 ............................................................................................................................................................... 139 134

219 ............................................................................................................................................................... 137 134

220 ............................................................................................................................................................... 136 133

§ 73.840 Operating power and mode

tolerances.

The transmitter power output (TPO)

of an LPFM station must be determined

by the procedures set forth in § 73.267

of this part. The operating TPO of an

LPFM station with an authorized TPO of

more than ten watts must be maintained

as near as practicable to its authorized

TPO and may not be less than 90% of

the minimum TPO nor greater than

105% of the maximum authorized TPO.

An LPFM station with an authorized

TPO of ten watts or less may operate

with less than the authorized power, but

not more than 105% of the authorized

power.

§ 73.845 Transmission system operation.

Each LPFM licensee is responsible for

maintaining and operating its broadcast

station in a manner that complies with

the technical rules set forth elsewhere in

this part and in accordance with the

terms of the station authorization. In the

event that an LPFM station is operating

in a manner that is not in compliance

with the technical rules set forth

elsewhere in this part or the terms of the

station authorization, broadcast

operation must be terminated within

three hours.

§ 73.850 Operating schedule.

(a) All LPFM stations will be licensed

for unlimited time operation, except

those stations operating under a time

sharing agreement pursuant to § 73.872.

(b) All LPFM stations are required to

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, stations licensed to

educational institutions are not required

to operate on Saturday or Sunday or to

observe the minimum operating

requirements during those days

designated on the official school

calendar as vacation or recess periods.

§ 73.853 Licensing requirements and

service.

(a) An LPFM station may be licensed

only to:

(1) Nonprofit educational

organizations and upon a showing that

the proposed station will be used for the

advancement of an educational

program; and

(2) State and local governments and

non-government entities that will

provide non-commercial public safety

radio services.

(b) Only local applicants will be

permitted to submit applications for a

period of two years from the date that

LP100 and LP10 stations, respectively,

are first made available for application.

For the purposes of this paragraph, an

applicant will be deemed local if it can

certify that:

(1) The applicant, its local chapter or

branch is physically headquartered or

has a campus within 16.1 km (10 miles)

of the proposed site for the transmitting

antenna;

(2) It has 75% of its board members

residing within 16.1 km (10 miles) of

the proposed site for the transmitting

antenna; or

(3) In the case of any applicant

proposing a public safety radio service,

the applicant has jurisdiction within the

service area of the proposed LPFM

station.

§ 73.854 Unlicensed operations.

No application for an LPFM station

may be granted unless the applicant

certifies, under penalty of perjury, to

one of the following statements:

(a) Neither the applicant, nor any

party to the application, has engaged in

any manner including individually or

with persons, groups, organizations or

other entities, in the unlicensed

operation of any station in violation of

section 301 of the Communications Act

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 301.

(b) To the extent the applicant or any

party to the application has engaged in

any manner, individually or with other

persons, groups, organizations or other

entities, in the unlicensed operation of

a station in violation of section 301 of

the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 301, such an

engagement:

(1) Ceased voluntarily no later than

February 26, 1999, without direction

from the FCC to do so; or

(2) Ceased operation within 24 hours

of being directed by the FCC to

terminate unlicensed operation of any

station.

§ 73.855 Ownership limits.

(a) No authorization for an LPFM

station shall be granted to any party if

the grant of that authorization will

result in any such party holding an

attributable interest in two LPFM

stations separated by less than 12 km (7

miles).

(b) Nationwide ownership limits will

be phased in according to the following

schedule:

(1) For a period of two years from the

date that the LPFM stations are first

made available for application, a party

may hold an attributable interest in no

more than one LPFM station.

(2) For the period between two and

three years from the date that the initial

filing window opens for LPFM

applications, a party may hold an

attributable interest in no more than five

LPFM stations.

(3) After three years from the date that

the initial filing window opens for

LPFM stations, a party may hold an

attributable interest in no more than ten

stations.

7646 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§ 73.858 Attribution of LPFM station

interests.

Ownership and other interests in

LPFM station permittees and licensees

will be attributed to their holders and

deemed cognizable for the purposes of

§§ 73.855 and 73.860, in accordance

with the provisions of § 73.3555, subject

to the following exceptions:

(a) A director of an entity that holds

an LPFM license will not have such

interest treated as attributable if such

director also holds an attributable

interest in a broadcast licensee or other

media entity but recuses himself or

herself from any matters affecting the

LPFM station.

(b) A local chapter of a national or

other large organization shall not have

the attributable interests of the national

organization attributed to it provided

that the local chapter is separately

incorporated and has a distinct local

presence and mission.

(c) A parent or subsidiary of a LPFM

licensee or permittee that is a non-stock

corporation will be treated as having an

attributable interest in such corporation.

The officers, directors, and members of

a non-stock corporation’s governing

body and of any parent or subsidiary

entity will have such positional

interests attributed to them.

§ 73.860 Cross-ownership.

(a) No license for an LPFM station

shall be granted to any party if the grant

of such authorization will result in the

same party holding an attributable

interest in any other non-LPFM

broadcast station, including any FM

translator or low power television

station, or any other media subject to

broadcast ownership restrictions.

(b) A party with an attributable

interest in a broadcast radio station

must divest such interest prior to the

commencement of operations of an

LPFM station in which the party also

holds an interest.

(c) No LPFM licensee may enter into

an operating agreement of any type,

including a time brokerage or

management agreement, with either a

full power broadcast station or another

LPFM station.

§ 73.865 Assignment and transfer of LPFM

authorizations.

(a) An LPFM authorization may not be

transferred or assigned except for a

transfer or assignment that involves:

(1) Less than a substantial change in

ownership and control; or

(2) An involuntary assignment of

license or transfer of control.

(b) A change in the name of an LPFM

licensee where no change in ownership

or control is involved may be

accomplished by written notification by

the licensee to the Commission.

§ 73.870 Processing of LPFM broadcast

station applications.

(a) A minor change for an LP100

station authorized under this subpart is

limited to transmitter relocations of less

than two kilometers. A minor change for

an LP10 station authorized under this

subpart cannot is limited to transmitter

site relocations of less than one

kilometer. Minor changes of LPFM

stations may include changes in

frequency to adjacent or IF frequencies,

or, upon a technical showing of reduced

interference, to any frequency.

(b) The Commission will specify by

Public Notice a window filing period for

applications for new LPFM stations and

major modifications in the facilities of

authorized LPFM stations. LPFM

applications for new facilities and for

major modifications in authorized

LPFM stations will be accepted only

during the appropriate window.

Applications submitted prior to the

window opening date identified in the

Public Notice will be returned as

premature. Applications submitted after

the deadline will be dismissed with

prejudice as untimely.

(c) Applications subject to paragraph

(b) of this section that fail to meet the

§ 73.807 minimum distance separations,

other than to LPFM station facilities

proposed in applications filed in the

same window, will be dismissed

without any opportunity to amend such

applications.

(d) Following the close of the

window, the Commission will issue a

Public Notice of acceptance for filing of

applications submitted pursuant to

paragraph (b) of this section that meet

technical and legal requirements and

that are not in conflict with any other

application filed during the window.

Following the close of the window, the

Commission also will issue a Public

Notice of the acceptance for filing of all

applications tentatively selected

pursuant to the procedures for mutually

exclusive LPFM applications set forth at

§ 73.872. Petitions to deny such

applications may be filed within 30

days of such public notice and in

accordance with the procedures set

forth at § 73.3584. A copy of any

petition to deny must be served on the

applicant.

(e) Minor change LPFM applications

may be filed at any time, unless

restricted by the staff, and generally,

will be processed in the order in which

they are tendered. Such applications

must meet all technical and legal

requirements applicable to new LPFM

station applications.

§ 73.872 Selection procedure for mutually

exclusive LPFM applications.

(a) Following the close of each

window for new LPFM stations and for

modifications in the facilities of

authorized LPFM stations, the

Commission will issue a public notice

identifying all groups of mutually

exclusive applications. Such

applications will be awarded points to

determine the tentative selectee. Unless

resolved by settlement pursuant to

paragraph (e) of this section, the

tentative selectee will be the applicant

within each group with the highest

point total under the procedure set forth

in this section, except as provided in

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section .

(b) 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 two years prior to application,

have been physically headquartered,

have had a campus, or have had

seventy-five percent of its board

members residing within 10 miles of the

coordinates of the proposed transmitting

antenna. Applicants claiming a point for

this criterion must submit the

documentation set forth in the

application form at the time of filing

their applications.

(2) Proposed operating hours. The

applicant must pledge to operate at least

12 hours per day.

(3) Local program origination. The

applicant must pledge to originate

locally at least eight hours of

programming per day. For purposes of

this criterion, local origination is the

production of programming within 10

miles of the coordinates of the proposed

transmitting antenna.

(c) Voluntary time-sharing. If

mutually exclusive applications have

the same point total, any two or more of

the tied applicants may propose to share

use of the frequency by submitting,

within 30 days of the release of a public

notice announcing the tie, a time-share

proposal. Such proposals shall be

treated as amendments to the time-share

proponents’ applications, and shall

become part of the terms of the station

license. Where such proposals include

all of the tied applications, all of the

tied applications will be treated as

tentative selectees; otherwise, timeshare proponents’ points will be

aggregated to determine the tentative

selectees.

(1) Time-share proposals shall be in

writing and signed by each time-share

proponent, and shall satisfy the

following requirements:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7647

(i) The proposal must specify the

proposed hours of operation of each

time-share proponent;

(ii) The proposal must not include

simultaneous operation of the timeshare proponents; and (iii) Each timeshare proponent must propose to

operate for at least 10 hours per week.

(2) Where a station is licensed

pursuant to a time-sharing proposal, a

change of the regular schedule set forth

therein will be permitted only where an

written agreement signed by each timesharing licensee and complying with

requirements (i) through (iii) of

paragraph (c)(1) of this section is filed

with the Commission, Attention: Audio

Services Division, Mass Media Bureau,

prior to the date of the change.

(d) Successive license terms. (1) If a

tie among mutually exclusive

applications is not resolved through

time-sharing in accordance with

paragraph (c) of this section, the tied

applications will be reviewed for

acceptability and applicants with tied,

grantable applications will be eligible

for equal, successive, non-renewable

license terms of no less than one year

each for a total combined term of eight

years, in accordance with § 73.873.

Eligible applications will be granted

simultaneously, and the sequence of the

applicants’ license terms will be

determined by the sequence in which

they file applications for licenses to

cover their construction permits based

on the day of filing, except that eligible

applicants proposing same-site facilities

will be required, within 30 days of

written notification by the Commission

staff, to submit a written settlement

agreement as to construction and license

term sequence. Failure to submit such

an agreement will result in the dismissal

of the applications proposing same-site

facilities and the grant of the remaining,

eligible applications.

(2) Groups of more than eight tied,

grantable applications will not be

eligible for successive license terms

under this section. Where such groups

exist, the staff will dismiss all but the

applications of the eight entities with

the longest established community

presences, as provided in paragraph

(b)(1) of this section. If more than eight

tied, grantable applications remain, the

applicants must submit, within 30 days

of written notification by the

Commission staff, a written settlement

agreement limiting the group to eight.

Failure to do so will result in dismissal

of the entire application group.

(e) Mutually exclusive applicants may

propose a settlement at any time during

the selection process after the release of

a public notice announcing the

mutually exclusive groups. Settlement

proposals must include all of the

applicants in a group and must comply

with the Commission’s rules and

policies regarding settlements,

including the requirements of

§§ 73.3525, 73.3588, and 73.3589.

Settlement proposals may include timeshare agreements that comply with the

requirements of paragraph (c) of this

section, provided that such agreements

may not be filed for the purpose of point

aggregation outside of the thirty-day

period set forth in paragraph (c) of this

section.

§ 73.873 LPFM license period.

(a) Initial licenses for LPFM stations

not subject to successive license terms

will be issued for a period running until

the date specified in § 73.1020 for full

service stations operating in the LPFM

station’s state or territory, or if issued

after such date, determined in

accordance with § 73.1020.

(b) The station license period issued

under the successive license term

tiebreaker procedures will be

determined pursuant to § 73.872(d) and

shall be for the period specified in the

station license.

(c) The license of an LPFM station

that fails to transmit broadcast signals

for any consecutive 12-month period

expires as a matter of law at the end of

that period, notwithstanding any

provision, term, or condition of the

license to the contrary.

§ 73.875 Modification of transmission

systems.

The following procedures and

restrictions apply to licensee

modifications of authorized broadcast

transmission system facilities.

(a) The following changes are

prohibited:

(1) Those that would result in the

emission of signals outside of the

authorized channel exceeding limits

prescribed for the class of service.

(2) Those that would cause the

transmission system to exceed the

equipment performance measurements

prescribed in § 73.508.

(b) The following changes may be

made only after the grant of a

construction permit application on FCC

Form 318.

(1) Any construction of a new tower

structure for broadcast purposes, except

for replacement of an existing tower

with a new tower of identical height and

geographic coordinates.

(2) Any change in station geographic

coordinates, including coordinate

corrections and any move of the antenna

to another tower structure located at the

same coordinates.

(3) Any change in antenna height

more than 2 meters above or 4 meters

below the authorized value.

(4) Any change in channel.

(c) The following LPFM modifications

may be made without prior

authorization from the Commission. A

modification of license application (FCC

Form 319) must be submitted to the

Commission within 10 days of

commencing program test operations

pursuant to § 73.1620. For applications

filed pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this

section, the modification of license

application must contain an exhibit

demonstrating compliance with the

Commission’s radiofrequency radiation

guidelines. In addition, applications

solely filed pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1)

or (c)(2) of this section, where the

installation is located within 3.2 km of

an AM tower or is located on an AM

tower, an exhibit demonstrating

compliance with § 73.1692 is also

required.

(1) Replacement of an antenna with

one of the same or different number of

antenna bays, provided that the height

of the antenna radiation center is not

more than 2 meters above or 4 meters

below the authorized values. Program

test operations at the full authorized

ERP may commence immediately upon

installation pursuant to § 73.1620(a)(1).

(2) Replacement of a transmission line

with one of a different type or length

which changes the transmitter operating

power (TPO) from the authorized value,

but not the ERP, must be reported in a

license modification application to the

Commission.

(3) Changes in the hours of operation

of stations authorized pursuant to timeshare agreements in accordance with

§ 73.872.

§ 73.877 Station logs for LPFM stations.

(a) The licensee of each LPFM station

must maintain a station log. Each log

entry must include the time and date of

observation and the name of the person

making the entry. The following

information must be entered in the

station log:

(1) Any extinguishment or

malfunction of the antenna structure

obstruction lighting, adjustments,

repairs, or replacement to the lighting

system, or related notification to the

FAA. See sections 17.48 and 73.49 of

this chapter.

(2) Brief explanation of station

outages due to equipment malfunction,

servicing, or replacement;

(3) Operations not in accordance with

the station license; and

(4) EAS weekly log requirements set

forth in § 11.61(a)(1)(v) of this chapter.

(b) [Reserved]

7648 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§ 73.878 Station inspections by FCC;

availability to FCC of station logs and

records.

(a) The licensee of a broadcast station

shall make the station available for

inspection by representatives of the FCC

during the station’s business hours, and

at any time it is in operation. In the

course of an inspection or investigation,

an FCC representative may require

special equipment or program tests.

(b) Station records and logs shall be

made available for inspection or

duplication at the request of the FCC or

its representatives. Such logs or records

may be removed from the licensee’s

possession by an FCC representative or,

upon request, shall be mailed by the

licensee to the FCC by either registered

mail, return receipt requested, or

certified mail, return receipt requested.

The return receipt shall be retained by

the licensee as part of the station

records until such records or logs are

returned to the licensee. A receipt shall

be furnished when the logs or records

are removed from the licensee’s

possession by an FCC representative

and this receipt shall be retained by the

licensee as part of the station records

until such records or logs are returned

to the licensee. When the FCC has no

further need for such records or logs,

they shall be returned to the licensee.

The provisions of this rule shall apply

solely to those station logs and records

that are required to be maintained by

the provisions of this part.

(1) Where records or logs are

maintained as the official records of a

recognized law enforcement agency and

the removal of the records from the

possession of the law enforcement

agency will hinder its law enforcement

activities, such records will not be

removed pursuant to this section if the

chief of the law enforcement agency

promptly certifies in writing to the FCC

that removal of the logs or records will

hinder law enforcement activities of the

agency, stating insofar as feasible the

basis for his decision and the date when

it can reasonably be expected that such

records will be released to the FCC.

§ 73.879 Signal retransmission.

An LPFM licensee may not

retransmit, either terrestrially or via

satellite, the signal of a full-power radio

broadcast station.

§ 73.881 Equal employment opportunities.

General EEO policy. Equal

employment opportunity shall be

afforded by all LPFM licensees and

permittees to all qualified persons, and

no person shall be discriminated against

because of race, color , religion, national

origin, or sex.

6. Section 73.1001 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read

as follows:

§ 73.1001 Scope.

* * * * *

(b) Rules in part 73 applying

exclusively to a particular broadcast

service are contained in the following:

AM, subpart A; FM, subpart B;

Noncommercial Educational FM,

subpart C; TV, subpart E; and LPFM,

subpart G.

(c) Certain provisions of this subpart

apply to International Broadcast

Stations (subpart F, part 73), LPFM

(subpart G, part 73), and Low Power TV,

TV Translator and TV Booster Stations

(subpart G, part 74) where the rules for

those services so provide.

* * * * *

7. Section 73.1620 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) and adding

paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:

§ 73.1620 Program tests.

(a) Upon the completion of

construction of an AM, FM, LPFM, or

TV station in accordance with the terms

of the construction permit, the technical

provisions of the application, the rules

and regulations and the applicable

engineering standards, program tests

may be conducted in accordance with

the following:

* * * * *

(5) Except for permits subject to

successive license terms, the permittee

of an LPFM station may begin program

tests upon notification to the FCC in

Washington, DC, provided that within

10 days thereafter, an application for

license is filed. Program tests may be

conducted by a licensee subject to

mandatory license terms only during the

term specified on such licensee’s

authorization.

* * * * *

8. Section 73.1660(a) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 73.1660 Acceptability of broadcast

transmitters.

(a) An AM, FM, LPFM, or TV

transmitter shall be verified for

compliance with the requirements of

this part following the procedures

described in part 2 of the FCC rules.

* * * * *

9. Section 73.3533 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as

follows:

§ 73.3533 Application for construction

permit or modification of construction

permit.

* * * * *

(a)(8) FCC Form 318, ‘‘Application for

Construction Permit for a Low Power

FM Broadcast Station.’’

* * * * *

10. Section 73.3536 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(7) to read as

follows:

§ 73.3536 Application for license to cover

construction permit.

* * * * *

(b)(7) FCC Form 319, ‘‘Application for

a Low Power FM Broadcast Station

License.’’

* * * * *

11. Section 73.3550(f) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 73.3550 Requirements for new or

modified call sign assignments.

* * * * *

(f) Only four-letter call signs (plus LP,

FM, or TV, if used) will be assigned.

The four letter call sign for LPFM

stations will be followed by the suffix

‘‘–LP’’. However, subject to the

provisions of this section, a call sign of

a station may be conformed to a

commonly-owned station holding a

three-letter call sign (plus FM, TV, or LP

suffixes, if used).

* * * * *

12. Section 73.3598(a) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 73.3598 Period of construction.

(a) Each original construction permit

for the construction of a new TV, AM,

FM or International Broadcast; low

power TV; TV translator; TV booster;

FM translator; FM booster; or broadcast

auxiliary station, or to make changes in

such existing stations, shall specify a

period of three years from the date of

issuance of the original construction

permit within which construction shall

be completed and application for

license filed. Each original construction

permit for the construction of a new

LPFM station shall specify a period of

eighteen months from the date of

issuance of the construction permit

within which construction shall be

completed and application for license

filed.

* * * * *

13. Section 73.3617 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 73.3617 Broadcast information available

on the Internet.

The Mass Media Bureau and each of

its Divisions provide information on the

Internet regarding broadcast rules and

policies, pending and completed

rulemakings, and pending applications.

These sites also include copies of public

notices and texts of recent decisions.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7649

The Mass Media Bureau’s address is

http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/; the Audio

Services Division address is http://

www.fcc.gov/mmb/asd/; the Video

Services Division is located at http://

www.fcc.gov/mmb/vsd/; and the Policy

and Rules Division’s address is http://

www.fcc.gov/mmb/prd/.

Part 74—Experimental Radio,

Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and Other

Program Distributional Services

1. The authority citation for part 74

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 74.432(a) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 74.432 Licensing requirements and

procedures.

(a) A license for a remote pickup

station will be issued to: the licensee of

an AM, FM, noncommercial FM, low

power FM, TV, international broadcast

or low power TV station; broadcast

network-entity; or cable network-entity.

* * * * *

3. Section 73.532(a) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 74.532 Licensing requirements.

(a) An aural broadcast STL or an aural

broadcast intercity relay station will be

licensed only to the licensee or

licensees of broadcast stations,

including low power FM stations, other

than international broadcast stations,

and for use with broadcast stations

owned entirely by or under common

control of the licensee or licensees. An

aural broadcast intercity relay station

also will be licensed for use by low

power FM stations, noncommercial

educational FM translator stations

assigned to reserved channels (Channels

201–220) and owned and operated by

their primary station, by FM translator

stations operating within the coverage

contour of their primary stations, and by

FM booster stations. Aural auxiliary

stations licensed to low power FM

stations will be assigned on a secondary

basis; i.e., subject to the condition that

no harmful interference is caused to

other aural auxiliary stations assigned to

radio broadcast stations. Auxiliary

stations licensed to low power FM

stations must accept any interference

caused by stations having primary use

of aural auxiliary frequencies.

* * * * *

4. The heading for § 74.1204 and

paragraph (a) are revised, and paragraph

(a)(4) is added to read as follows:

§ 74.1204 Protection of FM broadcast, FM

Translator and LP100 stations.

(a) An application for an FM

translator station will not be accepted

for filing if the proposed operation

would involve overlap of predicted field

contours with any other authorized

commercial or noncommercial

educational FM broadcast stations, FM

translators, and Class D (secondary)

noncommercial educational FM

stations; or if it would result in new or

increased overlap with an LP100

station, as set forth below:

* * * * *

(4) LP100 stations (Protected Contour:

1mV/m)

Frequency separation

Interference contour

of proposed translator

station

Protected contour of

LP100 LPFM station

Cochannel 200 kHz .................................................................................................................. 0.1 mV/m (40 dBu)

0.5 mV/m (54 dBu)

1.1 mV/m (60 dBu)

1 mV/m (60 dBu)

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–2718 Filed 2–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P