Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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.

67290 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 fullpower 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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

§ 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

§ 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)

67292 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 preset 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 coand 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, § 73.215 does not

apply to IF frequency channel stations.

Accordingly, we are amending § 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 § 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 communityoriented 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 postconstruction ‘‘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

67294 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 onepercent-of-households or thirtyhouseholds 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 fullpowered 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 crossownership 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

67296 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 CommunityBased Requirement and for the National

Ownership Cap

55. In the R&O, the Commission

established a two-year time period

during which only local, communitybased 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 twoyear 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 nonstock 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 nonstock 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 minorityoriented 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 tiebreaker; 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 § 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

§§ 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

67298 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 notfor-profit enterprise which is

independently owned and operated and

is not dominant in its field.’’

Nationwide, as of 1992, there were

approximately 275,801 small

organizations. ‘‘Small governmental

jurisdiction’’ generally means

‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns,

townships, villages, school districts, or

special districts, with a population of

less than 50,000.’’ The Census Bureau

estimates that this ratio is

approximately accurate for all

governmental entities. Thus, of the

85,006 governmental entities, we

estimate that 81,600 (91 per cent) are

small entities.

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 universitylicensees 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 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 universitylicensees 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:

§ 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:

§ 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 § 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:

§ 73.807 Minimum distance separation

between stations.

Minimum separation requirements for

LP100 and LP10 stations, as defined in

§§ 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.

Station class protected by LP100

Co-channel minimum

separation (km)

First-adjacent channel

minimum separation (km) Second-adjacent channel minimum separation

(km)—required

I.F. channel

minimum separations—10.6

Required or 10.8 MHz

For no interference received from

max. class

facility

Required

For no interference received from

max. class

facility

LP100 ........................................................................... 24 24 14 14 0 0

D ................................................................................... 24 24 13 13 6 3

67300 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Station class protected by LP100

Co-channel minimum

separation (km)

First-adjacent channel

minimum separation (km) Second-adjacent channel minimum separation

(km)—required

I.F. channel

minimum separations—10.6

Required or 10.8 MHz

For no interference received from

max. class

facility

Required

For no interference received from

max. class

facility

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.

Station class protected by LP100

Co-channel minimum

separation (km)

First-adjacent channel

minimum separation (km) Second-adjacent channel minimum separation

(km)—required

I.F. channel

minimum separations—10.6

Required or 10.8 MHz

For no interference received from

max. class

facility

Required

For no interference received from

max. class

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:

Station class protected by LP100

Co-channel minimum

separation (km)

First-adjacent channel

minimum separation (km) Second-adjacent channel minimum separation

(km)—required

I.F. channel

minimum separations—10.6

Required or 10.8 MHz

For no interference received from

max. class

facility

Required

For no interference received from

max. class

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:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 67301

Station class protected by LP100

Co-channel minimum

separation (km)

First-adjacent channel

minimum separation (km) Second-adjacent channel minimum separation

(km)—required

I.F. channel

minimum separations—10.6

Required or 10.8 MHz

For no interference received from

max. class

facility

Required

For no interference received from

max. class

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 § 73.211(b)(1) or

§ 73.211(b)(3) shall be protected by

LPFM stations in accordance with the

minimum distance separations for the

nearest class as determined under

§ 73.211. For example, a Class B1 station

operating with facilities that result in a

60 dBu contour that exceeds 39

kilometers but is less than 52 kilometers

would be protected by the Class B

minimum distance separations. Class D

stations with 60 dBu contours that

exceed 5 kilometers will be protected by

the Class A minimum distance

separations. Class B stations with 60

dBu contours that exceed 52 kilometers

will be protected as Class C1 or Class C

stations depending upon the distance to

the 60 dBu contour. No stations will be

protected beyond Class C separations.

* * * * *

(g) International considerations

within the border zones. (1) Within 320

km of the Canadian border, LP100

stations must meet the following

minimum separations with respect to

any Canadian stations:

Canadian station class Co-channel

(km)

First-adjacent channel (km)Second-adjacent channel (km)Third-adjacent channel (km)

Intermediate

frequency

(IF) channel

(km)

A1 & Low Power ...................................................................................... 45 30 21 20 4

A ............................................................................................................... 66 50 41 40 7

B1 ............................................................................................................. 78 62 53 52 9

B ............................................................................................................... 92 76 68 66 12

C1 ............................................................................................................ 113 98 89 88 19

C .............................................................................................................. 124 108 99 98 28

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

any Mexican stations:

Mexican station class Co-channel

(km)

First-adjacent channel (km)

Secondthird adjacent channel (km)Intermediate

frequency

(IF) channel

(km)

Low Power ....................................................................................................................... 27 17 9 3

A ....................................................................................................................................... 43 32 25 5

AA .................................................................................................................................... 47 36 29 6

B1 ..................................................................................................................................... 67 54 45 8

B ....................................................................................................................................... 91 76 66 11

C1 .................................................................................................................................... 91 80 73 19

C ...................................................................................................................................... 110 100 92 27

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

to any Canadian stations:

Canadian station class Co-channel

(km)

First-adjacent channel (km)Second-adjacent channel (km)Third-adjacent channel (km)

Intermediate

frequency

(IF) channel

(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:

67302 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Mexican station class Co-channel

(km)

First-adjacent channel (km)

Secondthird adjacent channel (km)Intermediate

frequency

(IF) channel

(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:

§ 73.809 Interference protection to full

service FM stations.

(a) It shall be the responsibility of the

licensee of an LPFM station to correct at

its expense any condition of

interference to the direct reception of

the signal of any subsequently

authorized commercial or NCE FM

station that operates on the same

channel, first-adjacent channel, secondadjacent channel or intermediate

frequency (IF) channels as the LPFM

station, where interference is predicted

to occur and actually occurs within:

(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 §§ 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:

§ 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:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 67303

§ 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 § 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:

§ 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.

FM channel

number

Class LP100

LP100 to TV

channel 6

(km)

Class LP10

to TV 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.

FM channel

number

Class LP100

to LPTV

channel 6

(km)

Class PL10

to LPTV

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:

§ 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:

§ 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 § 73.855, paragraph (b)

introductory text is revised and

paragraph (b)(4) is added to read as

follows:

§ 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:

§ 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 nonLPFM broadcast station, including any

FM translator or low power television

station, or any other media subject to

our broadcast ownership restrictions.

67304 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 218 / Thursday, November 9, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(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 nonstudent 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:

§ 73.870 Processing of LPFM broadcast

station applications.

* * * * *

(c) Applications subject to paragraph

(b) of this section that fail to meet the

§ 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:

§ 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:

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

14. In § 73.1660, paragraph (a) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 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 § 74.1204, paragraphs (a)

introductory text and (a)(4) are revised

to read as follows:

§ 74.1204 Protection of FM broadcast, FM

Translator and LP100 stations.

(a) An application for an FM

translator station will not be accepted

for filing if the proposed operation

would involve overlap of predicted field

contours with any other authorized

commercial or noncommercial

educational FM broadcast stations, FM

translators, and Class D (secondary)

noncommercial educational FM

stations; or if it would result in new or

increased overlap with an LP100

station, as set forth:

* * * * *

(4) LP100 stations (Protected Contour:

1 mV/m)

Frequency

separation

Interference

contour of

proposed

translator

station

Protected

contour of

LP100 LPFM

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 18

RIN 1018–AF54

Marine Mammals; Incidental Take

During Specified Activities; Correction

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

regulations to authorize the incidental,

unintentional take of small numbers of

polar bears and Pacific walrus during

year-round oil and gas industry

exploration, development, and

production operations in the Beaufort

Sea and adjacent coast of Alaska expired

on December 15, 1998. Subsequent

regulations that we issued should have

been characterized as ‘‘adding’’ rather

than ‘‘revising’’ these regulations. This

correction makes clear that our intent

was to add the regulations.

DATES: This correction is effective

March 30, 2000, and remains effective

through March 31, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

received in response to our most recent

final rule action, published in the

Federal Register on March 30, 2000, are

available for public inspection during

normal working hours of 8:00 a.m. to

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at

the Office of Marine Mammals

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road,

Anchorage, AK 99503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey L. Horwath, Division of Fish and