[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67289-67304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28613]



[[Page 67289]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

[MM Docket No. 99-25; FCC 00-349]


Creation of Low Power Radio Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document the Commission affirmed most of the Report and 
Order creating a new low power FM radio service. It affirmed the LP100 
and LP10 classes created in the Report & Order and the 3rd adjacent 
channel protection for most stations. The Commission did change certain 
aspects of the rules created by the Report & Order, however, it created 
a procedure to resolve complaints from listeners of full power radio 
stations claiming unexpected interference from LPFM stations. The 
complaint procedures are intended to ensure that if any unexpected, 
significant 3rd adjacent channel interference problems are caused by 
the operation of a particular LPFM station, they can be resolved 
expeditiously. The Commission also preserved existing protection for 
those stations providing radio reading services for blind or low vision 
listeners. The Commission made other minor changes to ownership rules 
involving public safety and transportation organizations and schools.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective December 11, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Barrie, (202) 418-2130, Policy 
and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration (``MO&O''), MM 99-25; 
FCC 00-349, adopted September 20, 2000; released September 28, 2000. 
The full text of the Commission's MO&O is available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 
TW-A306), 445 12 St. S.W., Washington, D.C. The complete text of this 
MO&O may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Services (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th St., 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Synopsis of Memorandum Opinion and Order

I. Background

    1. In January, we adopted a Report and Order (``R&O''), 65 FR 7616 
(February 15, 2000), establishing a low power FM radio service. We 
authorized this new service to provide opportunities for new voices to 
be heard, while at the same time preserving the integrity and technical 
excellence of existing FM radio service and safeguarding its transition 
to a digital transmission mode. In this MO&O, we dispose of petitions 
for reconsideration of the R&O, make certain changes to our rules, and 
provide certain clarifications of our rules.
    2. In the R&O, the Commission authorized two new classes of FM 
radio service, known collectively as low power FM (LPFM). The LP100 
class will consist of stations with a maximum power of 100 watts 
effective radiated power (ERP) at 30 meters antenna height above 
average terrain (HAAT), providing a signal level equivalent to the FM 
``protected'' service (1 mV/m or 60 dBu) within a radius of 
approximately 3.5 miles. After a period of time sufficient to act on 
LP100 applications that are filed, the Mass Media Bureau will accept 
applications for LP10 stations. We are accepting applications for LP100 
stations on a geographically staggered basis. See filing window 
schedule. The initial filing window for the first region closed June 8, 
2000. The initial filing window for the fifth, and last, region is 
expected to be opened in May 2001. These stations will have a maximum 
power of 10 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT, providing the same signal 
strength out to approximately 1 or 2 miles from the station's antenna. 
To avoid compromising existing FM radio service, given the new nature 
of the LPFM service, we imposed separation requirements for LPFM with 
respect to full power stations operating on co-, 1st--and 2nd--adjacent 
and intermediate frequency (IF) channels. Based on our engineers' 
technical analysis and careful review of other analyses submitted, we 
determined 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. We decided, 
therefore, not to impose 3rd adjacent channel separation requirements 
because doing so would unnecessarily and substantially restrict the 
number of LPFM stations that could be authorized, particularly in 
higher population areas.
    3. We restricted LPFM service to noncommercial operations by 
noncommercial educational entities and public safety radio services. 
With certain narrow exceptions, we decided to restrict ownership to 
entities that have no attributable interest in any other broadcast 
station or other media subject to our ownership rules. We severely 
restricted the number of LPFM stations that a single entity can own and 
limited ownership to locally-based entities for the first two years. We 
determined not to permit the sale of an LPFM station. To resolve 
mutually exclusive applications, we decided to use a point system that 
favors local ownership and locally-originated programming, with time-
sharing and successive license terms as tie-breakers. Finally, we have 
minimized the regulatory burdens imposed on these stations, consistent 
with their size and very localized operation.
    4. In this MO&O, we generally affirm the decisions we reached in 
the R&O, although we make some changes and clarify certain aspects of 
our rules. As explained, we reject arguments by petitioners proposing 
more stringent channel separation requirements, as well as arguments in 
favor of relaxing those requirements. We adopt complaint and license 
modification procedures to ensure that if any unexpected, significant 
3rd adjacent channel interference problems are caused by the operation 
of a particular LPFM station, it can be resolved expeditiously. We 
decline to modify the permissible power levels for the service. We 
modify the spacing standards adopted in the R&O to require that LPFM 
stations operating on 3rd adjacent channels protect stations operating 
radio reading services and, pending further study, will not authorize 
an LPFM station that would not be sufficiently geographically separated 
from any full-service FM station on a 3rd adjacent channel that 
operates a radio reading service as of the date of the adoption of this 
MO&O. We also decline to alter the noncommercial nature of the service. 
We affirm our decision to apply our character qualifications policy 
with respect to former illegal broadcasters. We increase the 
flexibility of the ownership rules for certain specific types of 
applicants: government, transportation and public safety entities, and 
universities. We provide clarifications on eligibility issues 
concerning Indian tribes, student stations, licensees in the 
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS), and schools with 
multiple campuses. We affirm our tie-breaker criteria, with certain 
clarifications regarding the credit for programming that is locally 
originated. Finally, we address a number of questions and suggestions 
regarding individual elements of our rules.

[[Page 67290]]

II. Issue Analysis

A. Technical Rules

1. Second and Third Adjacent Channel Protection
    5. In the R&O, we determined that it was not necessary to require 
that LPFM stations protect other full or low power FM stations 
operating on 3rd adjacent channels, i.e., stations +/-600 KHz apart. 
Our decision on this issue was based on our finding that 100-watt LPFM 
stations operating on 3rd adjacent channels will not result in 
significant new interference to the service of existing FM stations. We 
concluded that any small amount of interference that may occur in 
individual cases would be outweighed by the benefits of new low power 
FM service. We also determined that the risk of interference from LPFM 
stations on 2nd adjacent channels may be somewhat higher than that from 
such operations on 3rd adjacent channels and therefore chose to retain 
2nd adjacent channel protection requirements for LPFM stations.
    6. These decisions were based on the substantial record of 
information and analyses on FM receiver performance characteristics 
that was developed in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
(``NPRM''), 64 FR 07577 (February 16, 1999). The record included three 
technical studies of FM receivers that were filed by commenting 
parties.
    7. 3rd Adjacent Channel Protection. NPR disagrees with our findings 
that any risk of interference from 100-watt LPFM stations operating on 
3rd adjacent channels is small and that any such interference that does 
occur is, on balance, outweighed by the benefits of the new service. It 
argues that neither of these premises, nor our decision to reduce the 
existing FM interference protections, are supported by the record.
    8. Radio Reading Services. In its petition, NPR requests that we 
provide additional interference protection for FM stations that operate 
radio reading services. Radio reading services, which provide access to 
printed news and other information sources for blind or print-disabled 
persons, are transmitted via FM station subcarrier (SCA) facilities.
    9. 2nd Adjacent Channel Operation. J. Rodger Skinner and UCC 
request that we reconsider our decision to apply 2nd adjacent channel 
protection requirements to LPFM stations and revise the rules to allow 
operation of LPFM stations without regard to 2nd adjacent channel 
separation. Skinner submits that our recent receiver tests, and the 
fact that no interference has been reported during the many years when 
short-spaced grandfathered full service stations were allowed to 
relocate without regard to 2nd or 3rd adjacent channel restrictions, 
are indicative that low power stations could operate on such channels 
without causing interference.
    10. The existing FM interference protections, which are provided 
through spacing standards, are based on the following ratios: 20 dB co-
channel D/U; 6 dB 1st adjacent channel D/U; -40 dB 2nd adjacent channel 
D/U for commercial FM stations and -20dB for noncommercial stations 
operating in the reserved FM band; -40 dB 3rd adjacent channel D/U. 
Receivers with the ability to reject interference at these ratios could 
be expected to provide interference free service within a station's 60 
dBu contour service area. (Such radios might not, however, be able to 
receive service at all locations within that contour if they did not 
have sufficient sensitivity to receive signals at the 60 dBu level even 
in the absence of any interference.) Receivers with lower capabilities 
might experience interference within a station's service area, while 
those with higher capabilities might be able to reject interference at 
greater distances.
    11. We believe that the principal issue is receiver performance, 
i.e. the ability of modern FM radios to reject unwanted 3rd adjacent 
channel signals. Laboratory tests allow examination of individual 
receiver performance under controlled conditions. This permits precise 
control of both desired and interfering signals so that the 
interference performance of individual receivers can be accurately 
determined. Field testing, on the other hand, is generally used to 
confirm models or estimates of how both desired and interfering signals 
propagate to individual locations. For example, in the case of FM 
radio, estimates of desired field strength are based on the F(50, 50) 
field strength chart contained in 47 CFR 73.333, while estimates of 
interference are based on the F(50, 10) field strength chart in that 
Section. These charts shows the distances from their respective 
transmitters at which the desired signal strength is predicted to 
exceed a given level at 50 percent of the locations 50 percent of the 
time and at which the interfering signal strength is predicted to 
exceed a given level at 50 percent of the locations 10 percent of the 
time. In simple terms, this approach assumes that the desired signal is 
at an average level while the interfering signal is at a much stronger 
level, i.e., a ``worse case'' interference situation. These propagation 
and interference models have been used for many years for the FM radio 
and other services, and are independent of receiver performance. No 
questions have been raised by any of the parties in this proceeding 
regarding the propagation and interference models used for FM radio. 
Further, it is unclear as to what additional information, if any, field 
tests, would reveal about receiver performance, which is the principal 
technical issue in this matter affecting 3rd adjacent channel 
interference. Field test data, in our opinion, would merely assess the 
accuracy of our propagation predictions, rather than reveal information 
on receiver performance.
    12. Stations on noncommercial reserved FM channels (channels 201-
220, in the band 88-92 MHz) are authorized based on contour overlap, 
rather than the minimum spacing standards used for commercial stations. 
The contour overlap standards for noncommercial stations are the same 
as the D/U ratios on which the spacing standards for commercial 
stations are based, with one exception. The exception is that the D/U 
ratio for 2nd adjacent channel protection for noncommercial stations is 
-20 dB, whereas the 2nd adjacent channel spacing standard for 
commercial stations is based on the less stringent D/U ratio of -40 dB.
2. Regulatory Status of LPFM Stations
    13. We decided in the R&O to require LPFM stations to protect 
existing full-power FM stations, translator, boosters, and vacant 
allotments, according to the separation requirements adopted, and not 
to protect LPFM stations from interference introduced by new or 
modified FM stations. We also decided that LPFM stations will be 
required to cease operation if they cause interference within the 3.16 
mV/m contour of a subsequently authorized or modified FM station. One 
of our paramount goals in introducing LPFM service was that it not 
interfere with existing service. We believe that the rules we adopted 
strike a reasonable balance between the need to foster new service and 
our responsibility both to maintain the integrity of existing FM 
service and to allow for its expansion to better serve the public.
    14. Translators. FM translator stations may not continue to operate 
if any interference occurs in areas where a full service FM station has 
a ``regularly used'' signal, including locations beyond the full 
service station's applicable protected contour. However, LPFM stations 
are only required to protect subsequently authorized full service FM 
stations if interference is created within the full service station's

[[Page 67291]]

70 dBu principal community contour. The Commission's decision 
permitting LPFM stations to continue operation if overlap occurs in an 
FM station's service area outside its 70 dBu contour was an attempt to 
balance the service needs of full service stations with the need for 
stability in the LPFM service. FM translators provide full service FM 
stations with a means of supplementing signal coverage made deficient 
due to terrain or other transmission issues, while LPFM stations will 
provide a new program origination service. Given the differing purposes 
of the LPFM and FM translator services we do not feel that it is 
necessary for both services to have identical interference protection 
requirements.
3. Modulation
    15. In order to minimize the potential for interference from LPFM 
stations, the Commission concluded that LPFM stations would be required 
to meet current FM transmission standards. Additionally, in order to 
ensure that these standards are met, the R&O restricted LPFM stations 
to the use of FCC ``type certified'' transmitters.
    16. In most cases, these standards will be met through the use of 
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-of-channel signal attenuation requirements in 47 CFR 73.317 [via 
reference in Sec. 73.508], 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 this regard, we note that one of the rules modified in the 
R&O, inadvertently specified verification rather than certification 
procedures for LPFM stations. We are correcting the rules accordingly 
to correspond to our decisions in the R&O.
4. Cut-Off Date for Protection of Full Service Stations
    17. The R&O adopted a nationwide filing window for LP100 
applications and tentatively set the first window for May, 2000. The 
Commission directed the Mass Media Bureau to announce by Public Notice, 
(DA 00-621, released March 17, 2000) the opening of the first national 
window and to release this notice at least 30 days in advance. 
Subsequently, the Mass Media Bureau decided to accept LPFM applications 
in five separate filing windows to ``ensure the expeditious 
implementation of the LPFM service and to promote the efficient use of 
Commission resources.'' The R&O also established protection rights for 
both full service and low power stations. LPFM applications must 
protect all full service FM station applications on file as of the date 
of the public notice in accordance with the minimum distance separation 
requirements adopted in the R&O. Full service FM applications filed on 
or after the public notice date would be protected only to the extent 
that the applicant's 3.16 mV/m contour is affected by an LPFM facility.
    18. In light of our decision to use multiple filing windows to 
implement the LPFM service, we clarify our LPFM cut-off rules. We will 
use the release date of each public notice announcing the opening of 
the next LP100 window as the ``cut-off'' date for protection of pending 
full service FM applications. Thus, LPFM applicants in subsequent 
filing windows will be required to protect all full service 
applications on file as of the date of the public notice for their 
particular window. This includes applications that may not have been 
protected in previous windows.
5. Protection of Cable Television Headend
    19. In the R&O, the Commission made LPFM stations subject to the 
existing full service station requirements regarding the amelioration 
of blanketing interference. Cable headends are among the facilities 
covered by this rule.
6. Translators
    20. As part of its overall plan to protect FM stations from 
interference, the Commission adopted FM translator/booster-LPFM station 
minimum distance separation requirements. Because FM translator and 
booster stations generally do not have specific class limitations, the 
separation requirements were determined by analyzing the 60 dBu 
contours of authorized stations and grouping them into three cohorts 
based on station power and height. Additionally, we also amended part 
74 rules to require that FM translator and booster stations protect the 
1 mV/m contour of LP100 stations.
    21. Protection of Class A TV, Low Power Television and Television 
Translator Stations Operating on TV Channel 6. In order to protect TV 
Channel 6 stations from LPFM station interference, we adopted a rule 
(47 CFR 73.825) requiring LPFM stations proposing operation in the NCE 
portion of the FM Band (Channels 201-220) to meet minimum distance 
separation requirements with respect to TV Channel 6 stations. Section 
73.825 does not specifically address Class A TV, low power television 
(LPTV) and television translator stations operating on TV Channel 6. 
Accordingly, we will amend Sec. 73.825 to include additional minimum 
distance separation requirements which we believe will be adequate to 
protect the service provided by the Class A TV, LPTV and television 
translator facilities.
7. Spacing Table
    22. An anomaly in the minimum distance separation requirements of 
47 CFR 73.807(g) has come to our attention. Specifically, the tables 
specify greater 2nd adjacent channel spacing requirements to Canadian 
stations from LP10 stations than from LP100 stations. When considering 
low-powered facilities at very high signal strengths, the Commission's 
F(50,50) curves often must be used instead of its F(50,10) curves. 
However, in some cases the staff must utilize the ``free space 
equation'' formula to determine contour distances. ``In those cases 
where the distance calculated from the free space equation is greater 
than 5280 feet [one mile], but the F(50,50) curves show a distance of 
less than one mile, we use a distance of one mile.'' Although the staff 
properly used the treaty-required +20 dBu undesired-to-desired signal 
radio to determine 2nd adjacent channel interfering contours near the 
Canadian border area, the staff failed to account for the fact that, in 
cases where the free space equation yields a result greater than 1.6 
kilometers (one mile), 1.6 kilometers must be used as the contour 
distance. We have recalculated the minimum separation distances for 2nd 
adjacent channel LP10 stations near the Canadian border and are 
amending Sec. 73.807 accordingly. For the same reason, we are also 
amending the IF frequency separation requirements for Class LP100 
stations with respect to Class A and Class D stations, and Class B 
stations in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
    23. In addition to the anomaly in 47 CFR 73.807(g), we have 
determined that low power FM stations within Canada and Mexico had not 
been specifically protected from new domestic LPFM stations in the R&O. 
While these stations are protected by treaty, the R&O failed to include 
spacing tables explicitly protecting Canadian and Mexican low power FM 
Stations. To eliminate any uncertainty with respect to Canadian and 
Mexican stations, we are supplementing the international spacing tables 
specified in 47 CFR 73.807 to include specific distance separation 
requirements. To determine the spacings, we took the maximum facilities 
allowed for Canadian and Mexican FM translator stations, calculated the 
distance to the F(50,50)

[[Page 67292]]

protected contour, and added the distance to the F(50,10) interfering 
curve from the domestic LPFM station required to protect those 
stations. In doing so, we determined that Canadian low power FM 
stations should receive the same protections provided to Canadian Class 
A1 facilities. Therefore, the Class A1 spacings in 47 CFR 73.807(g)(1) 
and (g)(3) will also be used for protecting Canadian low power FM 
Stations. However, due to the differences in treaty requirements, 
Mexican low power FM stations require unique spacing distances, and 47 
CFR 73.807(g)(2) and 73.807(g)(4) are amended accordingly.
8. Directional Antennas
    24. In the R&O, we determined not to authorize directional antennas 
for LPFM stations. We concluded that directional antennas are 
unnecessary due to our reliance on a minimum distance separation 
methodology for interference protection, which assumes the use of a 
non-directional antenna. We also reasoned that authorizing only 
nondirectional antennas would simplify the preparation and processing 
of applications, thereby facilitating the expeditious implementation of 
the service.
    25. As we stated in the R&O, there are compelling needs for the 
services that will be provided by LPFM stations. As part of a 
streamlined application process to expedite the authorization and 
implementation of the service, we prohibited the use of directional 
antennas by LPFM stations. We continue to believe that given the low 
power levels in the LPFM service, authorizing stations to limit power 
in particular directions would not generally yield benefits sufficient 
to offset our concerns about the complexities of directional antenna 
authorizations. Authorization of directional antennas entails the 
submission and staff evaluation of radiation patterns and related 
information. Applicants for directional FM station licenses are 
required to submit measurement data to verify the radiation 
characteristics of directional antennas, as installed. Station 
proposals involving non-directional antennas can be authorized more 
quickly and with much less information from applicants. Such antennas 
will also facilitate uniform signal coverage within an LPFM station's 
service contour. Moreover, the conservative distance separation 
requirements established for LPFM stations will ensure that other 
stations are adequately protected against interference without the use 
of directional antennas. For these reasons, we generally affirm our 
determination not to authorize directional antennas for LPFM stations.
    26. As noted by the petitioners, however, we recognize that there 
could be tangible benefits to allowing the use of directional antennas, 
particularly for licensees whose service is generally tailored to 
directional signal paths.
    27. We will make a limited exception to the prohibition of LPFM 
directional antennas and permit such antennas to be used only by public 
safety and transportation entities in connection with the operation of 
TIS services. However, under no circumstances will a specific antenna 
pattern be considered when determining compliance with our LPFM 
interference requirements with respect to other stations. Thus, we 
affirm that all such applicants must propose LPFM locations that comply 
with the LPFM distance separation requirements; requirements which 
assume use of a nondirectional antenna. Additionally, the use of a 
directional antenna will not affect a licensee's obligation to operate 
at its authorized ERP and will therefore not result in any extension of 
predicted coverage. Use of a high gain directional antenna will require 
a corresponding transmitter output power and transmission line loss 
that produces the authorized ERP.
    28. TIS applicants wishing to utilize directional antennas will be 
limited to the use of a single ``off-the-shelf'' antenna with pattern 
characteristics pre-set by the manufacturer. A composite antenna 
consisting of more than one antenna mounted together may not be 
utilized. Nor will we permit multiple directional antennas and 
transmitters to be used from a single licensed facility. When filing an 
application for license to cover a construction permit (FCC Form 319), 
permittees will be required to certify that the gain of the specified 
antenna and transmitter power output (TPO), coupled with the necessary 
transmission line, produces the licensed ERP. For the purposes of 
station authorizations and our engineering database, all LPFM stations, 
including those of TIS stations, will be considered ``non-
directional.'' Thus, we will not require applicants for station 
licenses to submit any data beyond antenna make and model. We will 
expect all licensees to install their antennas in accordance with the 
manufacturer's specifications.
8. Service Area Issues
    29. In order to avoid the creation of interference to existing FM 
broadcast stations, the R&O adopted minimum distance separation 
requirements that were premised on the lack of prohibited overlap to 
each station class' maximum protected contour. In addition, in an 
effort to account for modifications to existing full service stations, 
and minimize interference, an additional 20 kilometer ``buffer'' was 
added to the co-and 1st adjacent channel separation requirements. 
Greater protection still was given to several superpowered stations 
operating within the reserved portion of the FM band. Finally, although 
a full service station proposing a facility modification could 
potentially be required to accept some interference from an operating 
LPFM station, the rules require that LPFM stations fully protect FM 
station modifications to their principal community (70 dBu) contours.
    30. We wish to clarify 47 CFR 73.809 as it relates to determining 
interference caused by LPFM stations to full service stations operating 
on IF frequency channels. That section states that interference will be 
shown by demonstrating contour overlap based upon the interference 
ratios of 47 CFR 73.215. However, Sec. 73.215 does not apply to IF 
frequency channel stations. Accordingly, we are amending Sec. 73.809 to 
state that IF frequency channel interference will be determined via 
overlap of the 91 dBu F(50,50) (36 mV/m) contours. This contour was 
utilized to calculate the LPFM IF frequency channel spacing 
requirements.
    31. All full service stations operating in the non-reserved band, 
regardless of facilities, must be protected under the provisions of 47 
CFR 73.207 (distance separations based upon maximum class facilities) 
or Sec. 73.215 (lesser separation requirements based upon the lack of 
contour overlap with maximum class facilities).
9. Digital Audio Broadcasting
    32. The Commission's decision to retain 2nd adjacent channel LPFM 
protection requirements but eliminate 3rd adjacent channel standards 
was designed, in part, to ensure that the introduction of the LPFM 
service did not impede the development of in-band on-channel (IBOC) 
digital audio broadcasting (DAB) technologies.

B. Third Adjacent Channel Complaint and License Modification Procedure

    33. Based on the Commission's technical analyses and its review of 
several independent studies submitted in this proceeding we decided not 
to require LPFM stations to provide 3rd adjacent channel protection to 
full power stations. As discussed above, no issues have been raised on 
reconsideration that have persuaded us to reconsider our findings and 
conclusions on this matter. We continue to believe that the risk of 
interference

[[Page 67293]]

from LPFM stations is small, and that the interference that may occur 
in individual cases would be vastly outweighed by the benefits of 
initiating a new service that will create new outlets for locally based 
community-oriented voices.
    34. We concluded in the R&O that the licensing of LPFM stations on 
3rd adjacent channels would not result in significant new interference 
to existing FM stations, i.e. that very few listeners would be able to 
detect additional interference as a result of commencement of LPFM 
service on a 3rd adjacent channel. Although we expect it to be the rare 
case where an LPFM station operating on a 3rd adjacent channel causes 
more than a de minimis level of interference within the service area of 
a full power station protected by the distance separation requirements 
for other channel relationships, such a result would be unacceptable if 
it were to occur. Accordingly, we conclude on reconsideration that it 
would be prudent to establish procedures that would encourage 
cooperation between the parties and permit the Commission to take 
prompt remedial action where a significant level of interference can be 
traced to the commencement of broadcasts by a new LPFM station. As a 
result of these new procedures, there may be circumstances where, 
contrary to what we said in the R&O, an LPFM station will be required 
to take steps to resolve complaints that its signal is interfering with 
the reception of a full power FM station even though the LPFM station 
is operating in accordance with the relevant rules.
    35. This marks the first time that the Commission has departed from 
a purely ``predicted interference'' approach for an aural service that 
has program origination authority and that enjoys certain protections 
generally thought of as ``primary'' stations rights. Our willingness to 
do so is based on a unique combination of factors. Most importantly, we 
are confident about the technical conclusions we have reached in the 
proceeding. Specifically, we continue to believe that it is unlikely 
that more than a few listeners will detect any additional interference 
to the reception of an existing FM station at locations that would be 
entitled to protection under our full power third adjacent channel 
interference methodology. Thus, the post-construction ``actual 
interference'' complaint procedure we are establishing should not pose 
a significant threat to the viability or stability of the LPFM service.
    36. Moreover, an efficient complaint procedure will promote the 
fullest interference-free use of the FM broadcast spectrum. At this 
time there are few, if any, full power FM station opportunities in most 
of the highly populated areas of the country. In fact, staff studies in 
this proceeding establish that there are no available FM channels for 
LP100 stations in a number of major markets. In many communities 
broadcasters have fully taken advantage of the Commission's policy of 
licensing efficient high-power stations that serve wide areas with 
limited technical preclusiveness. As a result, most Americans enjoy 
abundant radio service. LPFM is not, as some argue, in conflict with 
these principles. Rather it is a complementary way to serve the needs 
of communities within a mature broadcast service. It is grounded on the 
success of the Commission's licensing policies and is designed to 
efficiently match the little spectrum that remains with the 
demonstrable demand for locally based programming. We conclude that an 
efficient, limited complaint procedure fairly balances the interests of 
incumbent broadcasters against the benefits of fostering a new and 
different kind of radio service.
    37. For purposes of the complaint process we will consider 
interference to occur whenever reception of a full power station is 
impaired by the operation of an LPFM station operating on a third 
adjacent channel station. We believe that it is unnecessary to adopt a 
more technically objective standard for determining whether a listener 
is experiencing ``actual'' interference. The ``any impairment'' 
standard has worked successfully over the past decade in the FM 
translator context. A particular listener's perception of signal 
impairment is dependent on many factors, including the receiver used, 
the programming, listener sound quality expectations, and listener 
auditory discrimination capabilities. As a result, we are reluctant to 
adopt a single ``objectionable interference'' standard. We are also 
concerned that this approach could add a level of factual complexity to 
the complaint process set forth below without any clear public interest 
justification.
    38. The complaint process may be invoked where an LPFM station's 
transmission facilities are located inside the predicted 60 dBu contour 
of an existing full power FM station operating on a 3rd adjacent 
channel; that is, the 60 dBu contour corresponding to the station 
facilities that existed at the time construction of the LPFM station 
was authorized. That contour, which encompasses the area that would 
have been protected had a 3rd adjacent channel distance separation 
requirement been applied to LPFM stations, will bound the complaint 
area. With regard to LPFM protection of subsequently modified, 
upgraded, or new full-service FM stations, we will conform 3rd adjacent 
channel protection responsibilities to the generally applicable 
provisions in paragraph 66 of the R&O and as codified in 47 CFR 73.809. 
In this manner, operating LPFM stations will be permitted to interfere 
within the 60 dBu contour of a new or subsequently modified FM station, 
but not within such a station's 70 dBu ``city grade'' signal contour or 
principal community of license, as applicable (see discussion of 
service area issues). Complaints will be limited to receivers located 
at fixed, identifiable locations within the full power station's 60 dBu 
contour that are not more than one kilometer from the LPFM transmitter 
site. This geographic limitation is intended to address broadcasters' 
specific concern about the lack of LPFM station 3rd adjacent channel 
interference protection requirements. An LPFM station's interfering 
contour would extend slightly less than one kilometer from the LPFM 
transmitter site. Under the Commission's interference methodology for 
FM stations, 3rd adjacent channel interference is predicted where the 
undesired signal is more than 40 dB stronger than the desired signal 
level, e.g., where the 3rd adjacent channel station's 100 dBu contour 
overlaps the desired signal level. The predicted 100 dBu contour of an 
LPFM station operating at maximum facilities would extend slightly less 
than one kilometer from the LPFM's transmitter site. The fixed receiver 
requirement is based on our desire to put in place a manageable and 
efficient complaint procedure. Mobile receiver complaints are generally 
much more difficult to identify and resolve. A mobile receiver, such as 
a car or portable radio, will encounter constantly varying signal 
strengths from various stations, resulting in a continuously variable 
potential for interference. The complaint must be received by either 
the LPFM or full power station within one year of the date on which the 
LPFM station commenced operation. This time frame is necessary to limit 
uncertainty regarding the potential modification or cancellation of an 
LPFM station's license and such station's financial obligation to 
resolve interference complaints. Any interference caused by the LPFM 
station should be detectable within one year after it commences

[[Page 67294]]

operation. The one-year cure period is similar to the technical 
requirement that each FM permittee resolve at its sole expense all 
blanketing interference complaints for a one-year period beginning with 
the commencement of program tests. The Commission will consider the 
modification of a station's license, including its cancellation, where 
as a result of the process described below, bona fide complaints from 
at least one percent of the households or thirty households, whichever 
is less, within the specified complaint area remain unresolved. The 
exact number of complaints necessary to satisfy this one-percent 
threshold can only be calculated on the basis of a specific antenna 
location of an allegedly interfering LPFM station. Assuming uniform 
population distribution within a community of license, the number of 
complaints necessary to reach this threshold would be, for example, 
approximately 19 in Charlottesville, Virginia, 29 in Minneapolis, 
Minnesota, and 12 in Frederick, Maryland. As noted, in no event would 
this procedure require more than 30 bona fide complaints. We do not 
anticipate this level of interference as a result of licensing LPFM 
stations on 3rd adjacent channels and will not consider it de minimis.
    39. The first stage of the complaint process is designed to 
facilitate cooperative efforts between LPFM and full power FM licensees 
to identify and resolve bona fide interference complaints. A listener 
who believes that an LPFM station signal is interfering with the 
reception of a full power station may initiate the complaint procedure 
by providing the full power station an affidavit that describes the 
nature and location of the alleged interference. LPFM stations 
receiving complaints directly from listeners will be required to 
forward promptly such complaints to the affected full power FM 
stations. The full power FM station will be required to identify those 
complainants who reside at locations covered by these procedures, and 
provide copies of all such bona fide complaints to the LPFM station. 
Initially, an LPFM station will have the opportunity to resolve 
individual interference complaints. For example, an LPFM station may 
agree to provide new receivers to impacted listeners or to install 
filters at the receiver site. The LPFM station also may wish to 
consider a power reduction or other facility modification to alleviate 
the interference. We expect the LPFM station to make serious and 
diligent efforts to resolve each bona fide complaint received.
    40. In the event that the LPFM station concludes that it is not the 
source of the interference and the number of unresolved complaints 
equals at least one percent of households or 30 households--whichever 
is less--in the complaint area, the LPFM and full power stations must 
cooperate in an ``on-off test'' to determine whether the interference 
is traceable to the LPFM station. To the extent necessary and where 
practical, we instruct our Enforcement Bureau field personnel to assist 
the parties in determining the source of the interference and 
identifying possible solutions. The Commission will consider a 
complaint resolved if the complainant does not reasonably cooperate 
with the LPFM station's investigatory and remedial efforts. If the 
licensees fail to reach agreement and the requisite number of 
complaints remain unresolved, the full power FM station licensee may 
request that the Commission initiate a proceeding to consider whether 
the LPFM station's license should be modified or cancelled. To expedite 
this process, LPFM licenses will include a condition permitting the 
Commission to modify or cancel such licenses where the Commission 
determines that the LPFM station is causing more than de minimis levels 
of 3rd adjacent channel interference to the reception of a full power 
FM station in the complaint area, i.e., where the number of bona fide 
complaints meets or exceeds the one-percent-of-households or thirty-
households threshold set forth above. This modification procedure will 
be conducted pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 316 and any such modification 
proceeding will be completed within 90 days of the filing of the 
complaint with the Commission, provided that the parties may seek 
extensions of this deadline consistent with our procedural rules. An 
LPFM station may stay this procedure by voluntarily ceasing operations 
and filing a ``displacement'' application on Form 318 within twenty 
days of the commencement of this modification procedure. A displacement 
application may propose a station relocation and/or channel change to 
any available channel. It will be treated as a ``minor'' change that is 
not subject to competing applications, provided that a requested LP100 
station site change is not greater than 2 kilometers or, in the case of 
an LP10 station, 1 kilometer.

C. Classes of Service

    41. The R&O established two classes of LPFM stations. LP100 
stations will be authorized to operate with maximum facilities of 100 
watts effective radiated power (ERP) at 30 meters (100 feet) antenna 
height above average terrain (HAAT). LP10 stations will be licensed 
with the equivalent of 10 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT. The Commission 
declined to create a 1000 watt class of low power stations because of 
potential interference concerns, and because it determined that LP100 
and LP10 stations would create more opportunities for community-
oriented service.
    42. Our conclusion that licensing these two classes of service at 
this time would serve the public interest is warranted by changes in 
the radio industry. In the past we have struck the balance in favor of 
licensing higher powered stations to ensure that large audiences were 
served. Now, when radio service is widely available throughout the 
country and very little spectrum remains available for new full-powered 
stations, we conclude that licensing very low powered stations will 
fill in the gaps in the spectrum that would otherwise go unused. This 
will maximize the use of the available spectrum, rather than create the 
inefficiencies we sought to avoid. In the past, we have declined to 
authorize low power FM radio broadcast stations because of our concern 
that they would ``preclude the establishment of more efficient, stable, 
full powered stations.'' At this time, however, we are creating an LPFM 
service that is designed to allow small stations to operate where full 
powered stations cannot. Moreover, we have adopted rules to ensure that 
the operation of LPFM stations does not undermine the technical 
integrity of the existing FM radio service. Consistent with this 
approach, we are licensing LP100 stations before LP10 stations. As we 
stated in the R&O, [w]e 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 stations after the initial demand 
for LP100 stations has been accommodated. Additionally, our own 
resources will be better spent first advancing services to relatively 
greater areas.'' Our decision to begin licensing low power FM radio 
stations at this time is also in response to the dramatic changes in 
the radio industry during the last four years since our radio multiple 
ownership limits were relaxed pursuant to the 1996 Act. Given the 
substantial consolidation of radio station ownership in recent years, 
the need for adding

[[Page 67295]]

diverse voices to the airwaves has grown. Because we have concluded 
that taking this step will not undermine our spectrum efficiency goals, 
we affirm our decision to create these two new classes of FM radio 
service.

D. Noncommercial Nature of LPFM Service

    43. In the R&O, we determined that only noncommercial educational 
entities would be eligible to hold LPFM licenses.
    44. Our goals in establishing the LPFM service were to create 
opportunities for new voices on the airwaves and to allow local groups, 
including schools, churches, and other community-based organizations, 
to provide programming responsive to local community needs and 
interests. As discussed extensively in the R&O, although we considered 
the entrepreneurial opportunities a commercial LPFM service would 
create, we concluded that a noncommercial service would best serve the 
Commission's goals in this proceeding.
    45. Specific questions were raised as to whether Indian tribes may 
apply for LPFM stations, or whether only their educational institutions 
may apply. As long as they meet the NCE criteria and other eligibility 
rules applicable to all applicants, Indian tribes may apply for LPFM 
construction permits. We have granted NCE radio station licenses to 
Indian tribes and to educational institutions operated by Indian tribes 
and thus, this LPFM eligibility rule follows current policy. We will 
apply the NCE criteria to Indian tribe applicants--and all applicants--
in the same manner in LPFM as we have in the existing FM radio service.

E. Ownership and Eligibility

1. Local Ownership Restrictions
    46. In the R&O we prohibited common ownership of more than one LPFM 
station in the same area and cross-ownership of any LPFM by any other 
broadcast station, including translator and low power television 
stations, as well as other media subject to our ownership rules. As 
discussed extensively in the R&O, we believe that strict ownership 
rules are an important mechanism for assuring the diversity of 
ownership that is so critical to this service. We concluded that the 
interest in bringing new voices to the airwaves would be best served by 
barring cross-ownership between LPFM licensees and existing broadcast 
owners and other media entities. We believe that the rules we have 
adopted for the LPFM service--including the strict cross ownership 
ban--will lead to more access by all segments of the population to the 
airwaves. We will, therefore, maintain the cross-ownership restrictions 
set forth in the R&O. As noted in the R&O, if a licensee of an AM 
station (or any other station) agrees to divest its interest in its 
license upon grant of the LPFM license, it may apply for an LPFM 
license.
2. National Ownership Limit
    47. The Commission established a staged national ownership rule. 
For the first two years after a filing window opens, an entity may own 
only one LPFM station. After the first two years we will allow one 
entity to own up to five stations nationwide; after three years, we 
will allow an entity to own up to ten stations nationwide. The purpose 
of this staged approach is to foster diversity by initially disallowing 
common ownership of LPFM stations, but eventually permitting common 
ownership where local applicants fail to come forward. As noted, since 
adoption of the R&O we adopted staggered filing windows based on 
geographic regions. We clarify that this two year limitation--as well 
as other time periods tied to the opening of a filing window--will 
begin to run in a geographic region based on the opening of that 
region's filing window.
    48. Public Safety and Transportation. In addition to NCEs, state or 
local governments or not-for-profit organizations that operate public 
safety or emergency services are also eligible owners for LPFM 
licenses.
    49. We will allow government, public safety and transportation 
organizations to apply for more than one license, but they must 
designate a ``priority'' application among those applications. The 
``priority'' application will undergo the usual selection process as 
outlined in the R&O whether or not it encounters mutually exclusive 
applicants. The other applications they submit will be dismissed if 
they are mutually exclusive with any other applications but will be 
eligible for grant in the absence of competing applications.
    50. Thus, we will allow government, public safety and 
transportation organizations to apply for more than one license, but 
they must designate a ``priority'' application among those 
applications. The ``priority'' application will undergo the usual 
selection process as outlined in the R&O whether or not it encounters 
mutually exclusive applicants. The other applications they submit will 
be dismissed if they are mutually exclusive with any other applications 
but will be eligible for grant in the absence of competing 
applications.
    51. Schools with Multiple Campuses. Several schools with multiple 
campuses sought clarification of the national ownership rules to permit 
the separate licensing of LPFM stations at several campuses. We believe 
the LPFM attribution exception should be expanded to cover separate 
school campuses in most cases, allowing schools to have LPFM stations 
on separate campuses notwithstanding our national ownership rule. This 
LPFM exception is inapplicable to full service NCE stations, for which 
there are no national ownership limits. Schools with multiple campuses 
applying for full service NCE stations are directed to the definition 
of attribution and the selection standards in 47 CFR 73.7000 and 
73.7003. For example, if several high schools in an area seek LPFM 
licenses but are all governed by a local school board, the high schools 
can assert that they are local chapters of a large organization and can 
apply for their own licenses. If multiple campuses of the same 
university apply for LPFM licenses, they too would be considered 
separate local entities under that exception. The same principle will 
apply to charter schools that are a part of a larger school system but 
seek their own licenses.
3. University-Licensed Student-Run LPFM Stations
    52. As noted, in the R&O, we determined that no broadcaster or 
other media entity subject to our ownership rules, or any party with an 
attributable interest in a broadcaster or media entity subject to our 
ownership rules, could hold an attributable ownership interest in an 
LPFM licensee. Moreover, we restricted local ownership, allowing an 
entity to own only one LPFM station in a community. We use the term 
``community'' to refer to the very small area and population group that 
makes up a station's potential service area and audience. For purposes 
of the LPFM local ownership rules, we require that no entity own or 
have an attributable interest in two or more LPFM stations located 
within seven miles of each other. Finally, for purposes of our national 
ownership limits, an entity may own only one LPFM station during the 
first two years of LPFM service. While we will disallow common 
ownership of LPFM stations for the first two years of LPFM service, we 
will permit multiple ownership of LPFM stations nationally, up to a 
maximum of 10 LPFM stations over a phased-in period, to bring into use 
whatever low

[[Page 67296]]

power stations remain available but unapplied for.
    53. Two petitioners ask us to create an exception to these LPFM 
multiple and cross-ownership rules to allow universities that hold 
full-power FM radio licenses to obtain LPFM licenses for student-run 
stations. Specifically, petitioners contend that our LPFM ownership 
rules preclude students from operating a university-licensed LPFM 
station where the university already holds licenses for radio broadcast 
stations, including NPR affiliated stations. Petitioners argue that 
students are not permitted to participate in the operation of these 
full-power stations and that our LPFM ownership rules deny students the 
opportunity to operate LPFM stations.
    54. We will allow universities that hold licenses for full-power 
broadcast stations that are not student-run to apply for LPFM licenses 
for stations that would be managed and operated on a day-to-day basis 
by students, provided that they do not face any competing applications. 
We find that allowing this limited exception to our LPFM ownership 
rules will promote our goals of maximizing diversity of ownership in a 
community and providing a medium for new speakers, including students, 
to gain experience in the broadcast field. Accordingly, if a 
university's full-power station does not provide the university's 
students with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the management 
and operation of that station, we will allow the university to apply 
for a license for a student-run LFPM station on that campus. If a 
license is granted, the station must be managed and operated by 
students of the university, although as the licensee, the University 
must retain ultimate control of the station's operations. However, in 
those cases where a university already holds an attributable interest 
in a broadcast station, its LPFM application will be eligible for grant 
only if it does not face competing applications. If the university is a 
licensee and its LPFM application faces a competing application, the 
university's LPFM application will be dismissed. We believe this 
exception properly balances the interests of local groups in acquiring 
a first broadcast facility and of university licensees that desire to 
provide a distinct media outlet for students.
4. Time Periods for the Community-Based Requirement and for the 
National Ownership Cap
    55. In the R&O, the Commission established a two-year time period 
during which only local, community-based applicants are eligible, and 
an entity can only own one station nationwide.
    56. When deciding on the two-year time period for the community-
based requirement, we weighed our interest in putting LPFM stations 
into the hands of local and diverse entities against our interest in 
ensuring that available spectrum does not go unused. As noted, we have 
adopted a staggered filing window approach for accepting LPFM 
applications based on geographic region. We clarify that the two-year 
period for the community-based requirement for each jurisdiction starts 
on the date of the filing window for that jurisdiction. Therefore, in 
Alaska, California, District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, 
Maine, Mariana Islands, Maryland, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Utah, for 
which we opened a filing window on May 30, 2000, the two-year period 
began running on that date. In the remainder of the jurisdictions, in 
which LPFM filing windows have not yet opened, the two-year period has 
not yet begun to run. Thus, applicants in these jurisdictions that have 
not yet had a filing window will have additional time to organize and 
prepare their applications.
5. Foreign Ownership and Non-Stock Entities
    57. Questions have arisen with respect to the application of 
statutory foreign ownership requirements to LPFM applicants and 
licensees. As we explained in the NPRM, all low-power facilities will 
be subject to the statutory requirements of Section 310(b) of the Act, 
which limits foreign ownership and voting interests in radio station 
licenses, including broadcast licenses. Sections 310 (b)(1) and (b)(2) 
prohibit the grant of a license to a foreign government or a 
representative of a foreign government; an alien or representative of 
an alien; or a corporation organized under the laws of a foreign 
government. While foreign parties may act as officers or directors of 
corporate licensees, Section 310(b)(3) prohibits foreign entities from 
owning or voting more than 20 percent of the capital stock of a 
broadcast licensee. If either the foreign ownership or voting interest 
in an applicant or licensee exceeds the 20 percent benchmark, we are 
required by law to revoke the license or refuse to grant the license 
application. In the Matter of Request for Declaratory Ruling Concerning 
the Citizenship Requirements of Sections 310 (b)(3) and (4) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Declaratory Ruling. Section 
310(b)(4), which limits foreign ownership in parent corporations, 
allows us to deny a license application, upon a determination that 
denial is in the public interest, where more than 25 percent of the 
parent corporation's capital stock is owned or voted by foreign 
entities. The Commission has determined that Section 310(b) applies not 
only to corporate interests, but also to partnership and other non-
corporate interests. Thus, we will apply our foreign ownership rules 
and policies on a case-by-case basis to all entities that are LPFM 
applicants and licensees, guided by Commission precedent.
    58. We recognize that many entities that will hold LPFM licenses 
will be non-stock corporations or other non-stock entities, and that 
non-stock entities do not have ``owners'' in the traditional sense. As 
the Commission has explained, the specific citizenship requirements of 
Section 310(b) reflect a deliberate judgment on the part of Congress to 
prevent undue foreign influence in broadcasting. Thus, for the purpose 
of determining whether a non-stock LPFM applicant or licensee complies 
with the statutory foreign ownership requirements, we will first 
consider the citizenship of those individuals who would have the 
ability, comparable to that of a traditional owner, to influence or 
control the licensee. In making these determinations we will be guided 
by Commission precedent.
    59. An applicant or licensee must directly inform us that an 
ownership structure may or does in fact exceed the foreign ownership 
benchmarks in Section 310(b) of the Act.
6. Minority Broadcast Training Institutions
    60. We agree that providing minority broadcast education would be a 
valuable use of the LPFM service, it is not the only valuable use. We 
believe our current eligibility rules will lead to the ownership of 
LPFM stations by a wide variety of groups, which will best promote our 
goals in this proceeding.
    61. As we stated in the R&O in response to requests for preferences 
for entities controlled by minorities, the Commission is conducting 
fact-finding studies as to whether such preferences may be justified 
consistent with Adarand. Depending on the outcome of these studies, as 
well as our experience with LPFM, we will consider in the future 
whether to adjust our rules to facilitate participation of more 
minority-oriented organizations in the service.
7. Unlicensed Broadcasters
    62. In the R&O, we determined that unauthorized broadcasters would 
not be eligible for LPFM licenses unless they could certify that they 
(1) promptly

[[Page 67297]]

ceased operation when directed by the Commission to do so if that 
direction was received prior to February 26, 1999, or (2) voluntarily 
ceased operation by February 26, 1999. In no event will an unlicensed 
broadcaster be eligible for an LPFM license if it continued illegally 
broadcasting after February 26, 1999. We have modified Sec. 73.854 to 
make clear that no unlicensed broadcaster that continued to broadcast 
after February 26, 1999 will be eligible for an LPFM license. As 
discussed in the R&O, our rule on unlicensed broadcasters was based on 
our concern that past illegal broadcast operations reflect on the 
entity's proclivity to deal truthfully with the Commission and to 
comply with our rules and policies. We continue to believe that a party 
that continued to operate in contravention of an FCC direction to cease 
operations should not be eligible to apply for an LPFM license. Such a 
party should have ceased its illegal broadcast while pursuing any legal 
challenge to a Commission order. Any party ignoring our order has 
demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the Commission's rules and 
thus should not be rewarded with an LPFM license.

F. Point System For Resolving Mutually Exclusive Applications

    63. In the R&O, the Commission created a point system to determine 
selection among mutually exclusive applications. The point system 
includes three selection criteria: (1) Established community presence; 
(2) proposed operating hours; and (3) local program origination. The 
system will employ voluntary time-sharing as an initial tie-breaker; 
that is, tied applicants will have an opportunity to aggregate points 
by submitting time-share proposals. Successive license terms will be 
used as a final tie-breaker.

G. Other Issues

    64. Low Power Advisory Committee. LPFM broadcasters and other 
interested parties are free, of course, to form a private organization 
to promote LPFM, support and assist its members and their operations, 
and address technical issues with each other and, where appropriate, 
raise them with the Commission.
    65. Automatic Program Review. We are open to proposing, or 
considering proposals, to revise our rules after we have had experience 
with the service, we do not find it necessary to commit now to a review 
in the future.
    66. Transfers of Control--Nonstock Entities. In the R&O, we 
established that LPFM licenses (and licensees) cannot be sold or 
transferred to another entity.

III. Conclusion

    67. In this MO&O, we generally affirm the decisions we reached in 
the R&O. We do clarify certain rules to provide better guidance to the 
public, and make minor revisions to improve our procedures and the 
quality of the LPFM service, and to protect stations operating radio 
reading services, while at the same time preserving the quality of full 
power FM service. We also establish a process to ensure prompt 
resolution of certain interference problems in the unlikely event they 
occur.

IV. Procedural Matters and Ordering Clauses

    68. Authority for issuance of this MO&O is contained in Sections 
4(i), 303(r), 403, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), 403, and 405.
    69. The actions taken in this MO&O have been analyzed with respect 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and found to impose no new or 
modified reporting and record-keeping requirements or burdens on the 
public.
    70. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of this MO&O including the 
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    71. Accordingly, the petitions for reconsideration or clarification 
listed below are granted to the extent provided herein and otherwise 
are denied pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), 403, and 405 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), 403, 
and 405, and Sec. 1.429(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429(i).
    72. The Motion of The Amherst Alliance et al. for a Decision on the 
Motion for Reconsideration of the Amherst Alliance filed June 5, 2000, 
and the Motion of Don Shellhardt et al. for a Decision on the Motion 
for Reconsideration of Don Schellhardt filed June 5, 2000, are to the 
extent provided herein dismissed as untimely and moot pursuant to 
Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), 403, and 405, and Secs. 1.429(d) and 
(i) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.429(d) and (i).
    73. The Commission's rules are amended as set forth. The provisions 
of this MO&O and the Commission's rules, as amended, shall become 
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

V. Supplemental Final Regulatory flexibility analysis

    74. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM and 
a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was incorporated in the 
R&O. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in 
the NPRM and the R&O, including comment on the IRFA and FRFA. No 
comments were received in response to the IRFA and the one comment 
received in response to the FRFA is addressed below. This present 
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental FRFA) 
conforms to the RFA.

Need for, and Objectives of, the MO&O

    75. In the R&O, the Commission adopted a 100-watt class (LP100) and 
a 10-watt class (LP10) of small radio stations. Because of the 
predicted lower construction and operational costs of LPFM stations as 
opposed to full power facilities, the Commission expects that small 
entities would be expected to have few economic obstacles to becoming 
LPFM licensees. Therefore, as discussed in the R&O and the FRFA, 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. The Commission received petitions for reconsideration of 
the R&O that requested reconsideration of a variety of issues. This 
MO&O resolves those issues.
    76. We do not change most of the determinations made in the R&O. We 
do, however, adopt the following few changes. We adopt complaint and 
license modification procedures to ensure that if any unexpected, 
significant 3rd adjacent channel interference problems are caused by 
the operation of a particular LPFM station, it can be resolved 
expeditiously. We modify the spacing standards adopted in the R&O to 
require that LPFM stations operating on 3rd adjacent channels protect 
stations operating radio reading services and we increase the 
flexibility of the ownership rules for certain specific types of 
applicants.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to 
the FRFA

    77. J. Rodger Skinner (Skinner), who submitted one of the original 
Petitions for Rulemaking regarding LPFM on February 5, 1998, contends 
in his Comments that the R&O's FRFA

[[Page 67298]]

analysis was flawed in claiming that the institution of LPFM service 
would ``create significant opportunities for new small businesses.'' 
Skinner argues that the rejection of commercial service, the imposition 
of 3rd adjacent channel separations and the refusal to include 1000 
watt stations undercut the Commission's expectation of new stations in 
the LPFM service. His argument, however, that the alternative 
resolutions he proposes were not considered and their rejection 
explained is mistaken. Both the R&O and the MO&O address each issue 
that he raises. In instituting this new LPFM service and in determining 
the rules that will govern it, we were concerned with the impact of our 
rules on small businesses, and took many steps to ensure the 
availability of this service to new entities. For instance, we adopted 
strict ownership limitations, made electronic filing voluntary, and 
refrained from main studio requirements for LPFM stations. At the same 
time, we explicitly weighed the best manner in which to achieve our 
goals in protecting existing service and creating this service against 
the benefits of commercial service, less stringent interference 
protection and higher power limits. Skinner's argument that small local 
businesses will be deprived of a potential economical advertising 
outlet also is insufficient to outweigh the reasons for our 
determination to make LPFM a strictly noncommercial service.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules 
Will Apply

    78. 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 not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 1992, there were 
approximately 275,801 small organizations. ``Small governmental 
jurisdiction'' generally means ``governments of cities, counties, 
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, 
with a population of less than 50,000.'' The Census Bureau estimates 
that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental 
entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 
81,600 (91 per cent) are small entities.
    79. The SBA 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 September 30, 1999, 
Commission records indicate that 12,615 radio stations were operating, 
of which 7,832 were FM stations.
    80. The rules will apply to a new category of FM radio broadcasting 
service. It is not known how many entities 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 eighteen months 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

    81. Most of the provisions of the R&O are unchanged by the MO&O. As 
noted in the R&O, the new service 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 of full power radio broadcasters.
    82. The portions of the R&O that were altered by the MO&O follow: 
(1) Radio reading services will be protected on the 3rd adjacent 
channel, (2) corrections were made to the spacing table, (3) a 
complaint procedure was added, (4) transportation entities will be 
permitted to hold multiple stations in certain instances, and (5) an 
ownership exception was created for university-licensees of low power 
radio stations. We do not anticipate that these changes will result in 
any changes to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of LPFM 
licensees.

Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered

    83. 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.
    84. The Commission believes that the LPFM service is likely to 
create significant opportunities for new small businesses. None of the 
changes made by the MO&O alter that belief. This MO&O alters the LPFM 
rules by allowing an expedited complaint process, creating additional 
interference protection for radio reading services, and increasing 
flexibility for specific licensees (university and public safety 
entities). The Commission believes that none of these revisions will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. However, in an abundance of caution we will examine any 
potential impact to potential LPFM licensees.
    85. The Commission does not anticipate that LPFM service will cause 
interference to existing stations. Due to concern expressed by parties 
about potential interference, however, the Commission has adopted 
complaint and license modification procedures to ensure that if any 
unexpected, significant 3rd adjacent channel interference problems are 
caused by the operation of a particular LPFM station, they can be 
resolved expeditiously. We believe this process will assist small 
entities by providing resolution to problems without delays and the 
potential for incurring legal and consulting expenses.
    86. The Commission offered additional protection to the radio 
reading services, pending its analysis of a Commission study conducted 
to assess radio reading service's performance as compared with other 
receivers. While

[[Page 67299]]

awaiting the results of the study, the Commission will not license LPFM 
stations on 3rd adjacent channels to existing stations with radio 
reading services. Because radio reading services provide such a 
valuable service, we have modified the rules to assure that 
interference to radio reading services does not occur. The only other 
alternative considered would have been to leave the rules as originally 
drafted in the R&O. We decided against that alternative until such a 
time as the Commission can confirm that no unacceptable interference 
would occur.
    87. The Commission makes a few other changes to the R&O. We allow 
transportation and public safety entities to hold multiple LPFM 
stations in certain instances and create an ownership exception for 
university-licensees of low power radio stations. Petitioners showed 
the Commission that these exceptions were merited based on the specific 
circumstances of these potential licensees. The only other alternative 
was to leave the rules as adopted in the R&O; to do so would not have 
accounted for the beneficial service, and unique circumstances, of 
particular applicants.

Report to Congress

    88. The Commission will send a copy of the MO&O, including this 
Supplemental FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
SBREFA. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the MO&O, 
including the Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the SBA. A copy of the MO&O and Supplemental FRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

VI. Filing Schedule

    89. The country has been divided into five groups of states 
accepting LPFM applications. The FCC has accepted applications from the 
first and second groups of states:
    90. 1st: Alaska, California, District of Columbia, Georgia, 
Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Mariana Islands, Maryland, Oklahoma, Rhode 
Island, Utah.
    91. 2nd: Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Virginia, Wyoming.
    92. The remaining three groups of states' LPFM applications are 
anticipated to be accepted as follows:
    93. 3rd: American Samoa, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, 
Missouri, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin 
(Public Notice October 2000; filing window: November 2000).
    94. 4th: Arizona, Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, 
Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Vermont, West Virginia (Public 
Notice January 2001; filing window: February 2001).
    95. 5th: Alabama, Arkansas, Guam, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Montana, 
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washington (Public 
Notice April 2001; filing window: May 2001).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 and 74

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.

Low Power FM Service Rule Modifications

    Part 73 of title 47 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended to read as follows:

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, and 336.
    2. Section 73.209(c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 73.209  Protection from interference.

* * * * *
    (c) Permittees and licensees of FM stations are not protected from 
interference which may be caused by the grant of a new LPFM station or 
of authority to modify an existing LPFM station, except as provided in 
subpart G of this part.
    3. Section 73.514 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 73.514  Protection from interference.

    Permittees and licensees of NCE FM stations are not protected from 
interference which may be caused by the grant of a new LPFM station or 
of authority to modify an existing LPFM station, except as provided in 
subpart G of this part.
    4. In Sec. 73.807, the undesignated text, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), 
(c)(1), (c)(2), the note to paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), paragraphs 
(g)(1) through (g)(4) and (g)(6) are revised to read follows:


Sec. 73.807  Minimum distance separation between stations.

    Minimum separation requirements for LP100 and LP10 stations, as 
defined in Secs. 73.811 and 73.853, 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 assumed to operating at the maximum permitted facilities 
for the station class. For second-adjacent channels and IF channels, 
the required minimum distance separation is sufficient to avoid 
interference received from other stations.
    (a)(1) An LP100 station will not be authorized initially unless the 
minimum distance separations in the following table are met with 
respect to authorized FM stations, applications for new and existing FM 
stations filed prior to the release of the public notice announcing an 
LPFM window period for LP100 stations, authorized LP100 stations, LP100 
station applications that were timely-filed within a previous window, 
and vacant FM allotments. LP100 stations are not required to protect 
LP10 stations. LPFM modification applications must either meet the 
distance separations in the following table or, if short-spaced, not 
lessen the spacing to subsequently authorized stations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Co-channel minimum       First-adjacent channel
                                                                      separation (km)        minimum separation (km)
                                                                ------------------------------------------------------     Second-
                                                                                 For no                     For no        adjacent        I.F. channel
                Station class protected by LP100                              interference               interference      channel          minimum
                                                                                received                   received        minimum     separations--10.6
                                                                   Required     from max.     Required     from max.     separation       or 10.8 MHz
                                                                                  class                      class     (km)--required
                                                                                facility                   facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LP100..........................................................           24            24           14            14              0                0
D..............................................................           24            24           13            13              6                3

[[Page 67300]]

 
A..............................................................           67            92           56            56             29                6
B1.............................................................           87           119           74            74             46                9
B..............................................................          112           143           97            97             67               12
C3.............................................................           78           119           67            67             40                9
C2.............................................................           91           143           80            84             53               12
C1.............................................................          111           178          100           111             73               20
C..............................................................          130           203          120           142             93               28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a)(2) LP100 stations must satisfy the second-adjacent channel 
minimum distance separation requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section with respect to any third-adjacent channel FM station that, as 
of September 20, 2000 (the adoption date of this MO&O) broadcasts a 
radio reading service via a subcarrier frequency.
    (b)(1) An LP10 station will not be authorized unless the minimum 
distance separations in the following table are met with respect to 
authorized FM stations, applications for new and existing FM stations 
filed prior to the release of the public notice announcing an LPFM 
window period for LP10 stations, vacant FM allotments, or LPFM 
stations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Co-channel minimum       First-adjacent channel
                                                                      separation (km)        minimum separation (km)
                                                                ------------------------------------------------------     Second-
                                                                                 For no                     For no        adjacent        I.F. channel
                Station class protected by LP100                              interference               interference      channel          minimum
                                                                                received                   received        minimum     separations--10.6
                                                                   Required     from max.     Required     from max.     separation       or 10.8 MHz
                                                                                  class                      class     (km)--required
                                                                                facility                   facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LP100..........................................................           16            22           10            11              0                0
LP10...........................................................           13            13            8             8              0                0
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
C2.............................................................           82           141           77            81             52               11
C1.............................................................          103           175           97           108             73               18
C..............................................................          122           201          116           140             92               26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b)(2) LP10 stations must satisfy the second-adjacent channel 
minimum distance separation requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section with respect to any third-adjacent channel FM station that, as 
of September 20, 2000 (the adoption date of this MO&O) broadcasts a 
radio reading service via a subcarrier frequency.
    (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 in 
the following tables are met with respect to authorized or proposed FM 
stations:
    (1) LP100 stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands:

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

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

[[Page 67301]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Co-channel minimum       First-adjacent channel
                                                                      separation (km)        minimum separation (km)
                                                                ------------------------------------------------------     Second-
                                                                                 For no                     For no        adjacent        I.F. channel
                Station class protected by LP100                              interference               interference      channel          minimum
                                                                                received                   received        minimum     separations--10.6
                                                                   Required     from max.     Required     from max.     separation       or 10.8 MHz
                                                                                  class                      class     (km)--required
                                                                                facility                   facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 
Sec. 73.211(b)(1) or Sec. 73.211(b)(3) shall be protected by LPFM 
stations in accordance with the minimum distance separations for the 
nearest class as determined under Sec. 73.211. For example, a Class B1 
station operating with facilities that result in a 60 dBu contour that 
exceeds 39 kilometers but is less than 52 kilometers would be protected 
by the Class B minimum distance separations. Class D stations with 60 
dBu contours that exceed 5 kilometers will be protected by the Class A 
minimum distance separations. Class B stations with 60 dBu contours 
that exceed 52 kilometers will be protected as Class C1 or Class C 
stations depending upon the distance to the 60 dBu contour. No stations 
will be protected beyond Class C separations.
* * * * *
    (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:

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

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

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                First-      Second-       Third-    Intermediate
                                                 Co-channel    adjacent     adjacent     adjacent     frequency
            Canadian station class                  (km)       channel      channel      channel    (IF) channel
                                                                 (km)         (km)         (km)         (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A1 & Low Power................................           33           25           20           19             3
A.............................................           53           45           40           39             5
B1............................................           65           57           52           51             8
B.............................................           79           71           67           66            11
C1............................................          101           93           88           87            18
C.............................................          111          103           98           97            26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 67302]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Second-
                                                                             First-       third     Intermediate
                   Mexican station class                      Co-channel    adjacent     adjacent     frequency
                                                                 (km)       channel      channel    (IF) channel
                                                                              (km)         (km)         (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Power..................................................           19           13            9             2
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (6) The Commission will initiate international coordination of a 
LPFM proposal even where the above Canadian and Mexican spacing tables 
are met, if it appears that such coordination is necessary to maintain 
compliance with international agreements.
    5. Section 73.809 paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are revised to read 
as follows:


Sec. 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, second-adjacent channel or intermediate frequency 
(IF) channels as the LPFM station, where interference is predicted to 
occur and actually occurs within:
    (1) The 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour of such stations;
    (2) The community of license of a commercial FM station; or
    (3) Any area of the community of license of an NCE FM station that 
is predicted to receive at least a 1 mV/m (60 dBu) signal. Predicted 
interference shall be calculated in accordance with the ratios set 
forth in Secs. 73.215(a)(1) and 73.215(a)(2). Intermediate Frequency 
(IF) channel interference overlap will be determined based upon overlap 
of the 91 dBu F(50,50) contours of the FM and LPFM stations. Actual 
interference will be considered to occur whenever reception of a 
regularly used signal is impaired by the signals radiated by the LPFM 
station.
    (b) An LPFM station will be provided an opportunity to demonstrate 
in connection with the processing of the commercial or NCE FM 
application that interference as described in paragraph (a) of this 
section is unlikely. If the LPFM station fails to so demonstrate, it 
will be required to cease operations upon the commencement of program 
tests by the commercial of NCE FM station.
    (c) Complaints of actual interference by an LPFM station subject to 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 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 for the complaint.
* * * * *
    12. Section 73.810 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 73.810.  Third adjacent channel complaint and license modification 
procedure.

    (a) An LPFM station is required to provide copies of all complaints 
alleging that the signal of such LPFM station is interfering with or 
impairing the reception of the signal of a full power station to such 
affected full power station.
    (b) A full power station shall review all complaints it receives, 
either directly or indirectly, from listeners regarding alleged 
interference caused by the operations of an LPFM station. Such full 
power station shall also identify those that qualify as bona fide 
complaints under this section and promptly provide such LPFM station 
with copies of all bona fide complaints. A bona fide complaint:
    (i) Is a complaint alleging third adjacent channel interference 
caused by an LPFM station that has its transmitter site located within 
the predicted 60 dBu contour of the affected full power station as such 
contour existed as of the date the LPFM station construction permit was 
granted;
    (ii) Must be in the form of an affidavit, and state the nature and 
location of the alleged interference;
    (iii) Must involve a fixed receiver located within the 60 dBu 
contour of the affected full power station and not more than one 
kilometer from the LPFM transmitter site; and
    (iv) Must be received by either the LPFM or full power station 
within one year of the date on which the LPFM station commenced 
broadcasts with its currently authorized facilities.
    (c) An LPFM station will be given a reasonable opportunity to 
resolve all interference complaints. A complaint will be considered 
resolved where the complainant does not reasonably cooperate with an 
LPFM station's remedial efforts.
    (d) In the event that the number of unresolved complaints plus the 
number of complaints for which the source of interference remains in 
dispute equals at least one percent of the households within one 
kilometer of the LPFM transmitter site or thirty households, whichever 
is less, the LPFM and full power stations must cooperate in an ``on-
off'' test to determine whether the interference is traceable to the 
LPFM station.
    (e) If the number of unresolved and disputed complaints exceeds the 
numeric threshold specified in subsection (d) following an ``on-off'' 
test, the full power station may request that the Commission initiate a 
proceeding to consider whether the LPFM station license should be 
modified or cancelled, which will be completed by the Commission within 
90 days. Parties may seek extensions of the 90 day deadline consistent 
with Commission rules.
    (f) An LPFM station may stay any procedures initiated pursuant to 
paragraph (e) of this section by voluntarily ceasing operations and 
filing an application for facility modification within twenty days of 
the commencement of such procedures.
    5. Section 73.816 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 67303]]

Sec. 73.816  Antennas.

    (a) Permittees and licensees may employ nondirectional antennas 
with horizontal only polarization, vertical only polarization, circular 
polarization or elliptical polarization.
    (b) Directional antennas will not be authorized and may not be 
utilized in the LPFM service, except as provided in paragraph (c) of 
this section.
    (c) Public safety and transportation permittees and licensees, 
eligible pursuant to Sec. 73.853(a)(ii), may utilize directional 
antennas in connection with the operation of a Travelers' Information 
Service (TIS) provided each LPFM TIS station utilizes only a single 
antenna with standard pattern characteristics that are predetermined by 
the manufacturer. In no event may composite antennas (i.e. antennas 
that consist of multiple stacked and/or phased discrete transmitting 
antennas) and/or transmitters be employed.
    (d) LPFM TIS stations will be authorized as nondirectional 
stations. The use of a directional antenna as provided for in paragraph 
(c) of this section will not be considered in the determination of 
compliance with any requirements of this part.
    6. Section 73.825 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 73.825  Protection to reception of TV channel 6.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Class LP100 LP100 to TV     Class LP10 to TV
   FM channel number          channel 6 (km)          channel 6 (km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             201                      140                     136
             202                      138                     134
             203                      137                     133
             204                      136                     133
             205                      135                     132
             206                      133                     131
             207                      133                     131
             208                      133                     131
             209                      133                     131
             210                      133                     131
             211                      133                     131
             212                      132                     131
             213                      132                     131
             214                      132                     130
             215                      131                     130
             216                      131                     130
             217                      131                     130
             218                      131                     130
             219                      130                     130
             220                      130                     130
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Class LP100 to LPTV      Class PL10 to LPTV
   FM channel number          channel 6 (km)          channel 6 (km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             201                       98                      93
             202                       97                      92
             203                       95                      91
             204                       94                      91
             205                       93                      90
             206                       91                      90
             207                       91                      89
             208                       91                      89
             209                       91                      89
             210                       91                      89
             211                       91                      89
             212                       90                      89
             213                       90                      89
             214                       90                      89
             215                       90                      89
             216                       89                      89
             217                       89                      89
             218                       89                      89
             219                       89                      89
             220                       89                      88
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Section 73.827 is added to read as follows:


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

    (a) An authorized LPFM station will not be permitted to continue to 
operate if an FM translator or FM booster station demonstrates that the 
LPFM station is causing actual interference to the FM translator or FM 
booster station's input signal, provided that the same input signal was 
in use at the time the LPFM station was authorized.
    (b) Complaints of actual interference by an LPFM station subject to 
paragraph (a) of this section must be served on the LPFM licensee and 
the Federal Communications Commission, attention Audio Services 
Division. The LPFM station must suspend operations upon the receipt of 
such complaint unless the interference has been resolved to the 
satisfaction of the complainant on the basis of suitable techniques. 
Short test transmissions may be made during the period of suspended 
operation to check the efficacy of remedial measures. An LPFM station 
may only resume full operation 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 for the complaint.
    8. Section 73.854 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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, if not 
previously directed by the FCC to cease operation; or
    (2) Ceased operation within 24 hours of being directed by the FCC 
to terminate unlicensed operation of any station but in no event later 
than February 26, 1999.
    9. In Sec. 73.855, paragraph (b) introductory text is revised and 
paragraph (b)(4) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 73.855  Ownership limits.

* * * * *
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4) of this section, 
nationwide ownership limits will be phased in according to the 
following schedule:
* * * * *
    (4) Not-for-profit organizations and governmental entities with a 
public safety purpose may be granted multiple licenses only if:
    (i) One of the multiple applications is submitted as a priority 
application, and;
    (ii) The remaining non-priority applications do not face a mutually 
exclusive challenge.
    10. Section 73.860 paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 73.860  Cross ownership.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, 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 our broadcast ownership restrictions.

[[Page 67304]]

    (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 
unless such party is a college or university that can certify that the 
existing broadcast radio station is not student run. This exception 
applies only to parties that;
    (i) Are accredited educational institutions, and;
    (ii) Own attributable interest in non-student run broadcast 
stations;
    (iii) Apply for an authorization for an LPFM station that will be 
managed and operated on a day-to-day basis by students of the 
accredited educational institution; and
    (iv) Do not face competing applications for the LPFM authorization.
* * * * *
    11. Section 73.870 paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 73.870  Processing of LPFM broadcast station applications.

* * * * *
    (c) Applications subject to paragraph (b) of this section that fail 
to meet the Sec. 73.807 minimum distance separations with respect to 
all applications and facilities in existence as the date of the 
pertinent public notice in paragraph (b) of this section other than to 
LPFM station facilities proposed in applications filed in the same 
window, will be dismissed without any opportunity to amend such 
applications.
* * * * *
    12. Section 73.872 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 73.872(b)(3)  Selection procedure for mutually exclusive 
application.

* * * * *
    (b)* * *
    (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, by the licensee, within ten miles of the coordinates of 
the proposed transmitting antenna.
* * * * *
    13. Section 73.877 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 73.877  Station logs for LPFM stations.

    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:
    (a) 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 Secs. 17.48 
and 73.49 of this chapter.
    (b) Brief explanation of station outages due to equipment 
malfunction, servicing, or replacement;
    (c) Operations not in accordance with the station license; and
    (d) EAS weekly log requirements set forth in Sec. 11.61(a)(1)(v) of 
this chapter.
    14. In Sec. 73.1660, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 73.1660  Acceptability of broadcast transmitters.

    (a)(1) An AM, FM, or TV transmitter shall be verified for 
compliance with the requirements of this part following the procedures 
described in part 2 of this chapter.
    (a)(2) An LPFM transmitter shall be certified for compliance with 
the requirements of this part following the procedures described in 
part 2 of the this chapter.
* * * * *

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, and 336.
    2. In Sec. 74.1204, paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(4) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 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:
* * * * *
    (4) LP100 stations (Protected Contour: 1 mV/m)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Interference
                                      contour of       Protected contour
      Frequency separation             proposed          of LP100 LPFM
                                      translator            station
                                        station
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cochannel.......................  0.1 mV/m (40 dBu).  1 mV/m (60 dBu)
200 kHz.........................  0.5 mV/m (54 dBu).  1 mV/m (60 dBu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note to paragraph (a)(4): LP100 stations, to the purposes of 
determining overlap pursuant to this paragraph, LPFM applications 
and permits that have not yet been licensed must be considered as 
operating with the maximum permitted facilities. All LPFM TIS 
stations must be protected on the basis of a nondirectional antenna.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-28613 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P