[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 15, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7616-7649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2718]
[[Page 7615]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Parts 11, 73, and 74
Creation of Low Power Radio Service; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 7616]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 11, 73 and 74
[MM Docket No. 99-25; FCC 00-19; RM 9208, 9242]
Creation of Low Power Radio Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document establishes rules authorizing the operation of
two new classes of low power FM (LPFM) radio stations. LP100 stations
will operate at a maximum power of 100 watts and LP10 stations at a
maximum power of 10 watts. The LPFM service will provide opportunities
for new voices to be heard and will be implemented in a manner that
best serves the public interest.
DATES: Effective April 17, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie Barrie, (202) 418-2130, Policy
and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau; Engineering Contact: Keith
Larson, (202) 418-2600, Mass Media Bureau.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order (``R&O''), FCC 00-19, adopted January 20, 2000; released
January 27, 2000. The full text of the Commission's R&O is available
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Dockets Branch (Room TW-A306), 445 12 St. SW, Washington, DC. The
complete text of this R&O may also be purchased from the Commission's
copy contractor, International Transcription Services (202) 857-3800,
1231 20th St., NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Synopsis of Report and Order
I. Introduction
1. With this Report & Order, we authorize the licensing of two new
classes of FM radio stations--one operating at a maximum power of 100
watts and one at a maximum power of 10 watts. Both types of stations,
known as low power FM stations (LPFM), will be authorized in a manner
that protects existing FM service. They will be operated on a
noncommercial educational basis by entities that do not hold an
attributable interest in any other broadcast station or other media
subject to our ownership rules. Initially, only entities located in the
communities the stations serve will be eligible to participate in this
service. Even once this eligibility criterion is relaxed, we will grant
a significant selection preference to locally-based applicants. We
believe that the LPFM service authorized in this proceeding will
provide opportunities for new voices to be heard and will ensure that
we fulfill our statutory obligation to authorize facilities in a manner
that best serves the public interest.
2. In establishing this new service, we are determined to preserve
the integrity and technical excellence of existing FM radio service,
and not to impede its transition to a digital future. In this regard,
our own technical studies and our review of the record persuade us that
100-watt LPFM stations operating without 3rd-adjacent channel
separation requirements will not result in unacceptable new
interference to the service of existing FM stations. Moreover, imposing
3rd-adjacent channel separation requirements on LPFM stations would
unnecessarily impede the opportunities for stations in this new
service, particularly in highly populated areas where there is a great
demand for alternative forms of radio service. We will not, therefore,
impose 3rd-adjacent channel separation requirements. To avoid any
possibility of compromising existing service, given the new nature of
the LPFM service, we will impose separation requirements for low power
with respect to full power stations operating on co-, 1st- and 2nd-
adjacent and intermediate frequency (IF) channels. We believe that the
rules we are adopting will maintain the integrity of the FM band and
preserve the opportunity for a transition to a digital radio service in
the future, while affording significant opportunities for new radio
service.
II. Issue Analysis
A. Goals
3. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) we adopted on January
28, 1999, (64 FR 7577, February 16, 1999) responded to petitions for
rule making and related comments indicating substantial interest in,
and public support for, increased citizens' access to the airwaves. In
the year since we issued the NPRM, proposing rules authorizing the
operation of new low power FM radio stations, we have received comments
and letters from thousands of individuals and groups seeking licenses
for new radio stations. Many of these comments, which will be discussed
in greater detail below, included comprehensive engineering studies and
valuable suggestions for service rules. These comments--from churches
or other religious organizations, students, labor unions, community
organizations and activists, musicians, and other citizens--reflect a
broad interest in service from highly local radio stations strongly
grounded in their communities. In authorizing this new service today,
we enhance locally focused community-oriented radio broadcasting.
4. Our goal in creating a new LPFM service is to create a class of
radio stations designed to serve very localized communities or
underrepresented groups within communities. To that end, in the NPRM we
proposed to establish two classes of low power FM radio service: a
1000-watt primary service and a 100-watt secondary service. We also
sought comment on whether to establish a secondary class of stations
operating between one and 10 watts. Commenters supporting low power
radio generally argued for the creation of an LPFM service consisting
of 100 or 10 watt stations. Most commenters did not support the
creation of 1000 watt stations, arguing that the local aspect of LPFM
service could be diminished by the size of the service area of such
stations. Some commenters opposing the institution of 1000 watt service
argued that 1000 watt stations present a greater interference potential
than 100 or 10 watt stations. We also stated in the NPRM a hope that
the largest of the proposed LPFM stations, at 1000 watts, could serve
as a proving ground and an ``entry'' opportunity for new entrants into
the full-power broadcasting industry. While we continue to view this as
a worthwhile goal, we are persuaded by commenters that establishment of
a 1000 watt service would not best fulfill our goals at the present
time. Our establishment of a low power radio service consisting of two
classes operating at maximums of 100 watts and 10 watts will allow
licensees to serve their local communities, and will permit a greater
number of new stations to be authorized, fostering a diversity of new
voices on the airwaves.
5. Another goal expressed in the NPRM was that any new LPFM service
specifically include the voices of community based schools, churches
and civic organizations. In the NPRM, we raised the question of whether
the LPFM service should include both commercial and noncommercial
licensees or whether it should be entirely noncommercial. We also
proposed that any stations of one to 10 watts be exclusively
noncommercial, as we did not see commercial potential in stations with
such limited service areas. Many of the commenters supporting LPFM
strongly supported the establishment of an entirely noncommercial
service. We tentatively concluded that auctions would be
[[Page 7617]]
required if mutually exclusive applications for commercial LPFM
facilities were filed, but noted that licenses for noncommercial
educational or public broadcast stations are specifically exempted from
auction by section 309(j). Given the overwhelming support for the
establishment of a noncommercial service, and the tendency of auctions
to skew the allocation of licenses away from noncommercial entities
that are more likely to serve underrepresented sections of the
community, we conclude that eligibility for LPFM licenses should be
limited to noncommercial, educational entities and public safety
entities.
6. Finally, in proposing the creation of a new LPFM service, we
made clear that we will not compromise the integrity of the FM
spectrum. We are committed to creating a low power FM radio service
only if it does not cause unacceptable interference to existing radio
service. The NPRM proposed that current restrictions on 3rd-adjacent
channel operations might be eliminated in order to establish an LPFM
service and also sought comment as to whether 2nd-adjacent channel
separations are necessary. The modification of our existing rules
concerning channel separations has generated extensive comment, as well
as extensive engineering studies. Our Office of Engineering and
Technology has conducted its own engineering tests, and has
comprehensively reviewed the studies submitted by commenters. The rules
adopted today reflect our well-considered conclusion that the
elimination of 3rd-adjacent channel separation requirements for LPFM
stations will not cause unacceptable levels of interference to existing
radio stations. We recognize that the elimination of restrictions on
both the 2nd-and 3rd-adjacent channels would create many more
opportunities for community-based LPFM stations, but, given the
ambiguity in the record on this issue and our commitment to ensure that
the new LPFM service does not unacceptably interfere with existing
radio services or impede a digital future for radio broadcasting, we
must proceed cautiously. Accordingly, we will impose 2nd-adjacent
channel separation requirements on LPFM stations.
B. Classes of Service
7. Background. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to authorize
two classes of LPFM stations: (1) an LP1000 class which would be for
primary stations operating with an effective radiated power (ERP) of
between 500 and 1,000 watts and with an antenna height above average
terrain (HAAT) up to 60 meters, and (2) an LP100 class which would be
for stations operating on a secondary basis with between 50 and 100
watts ERP and with antennas up to 30 meters HAAT. We also sought
comment on a very low power secondary LP10 service with an ERP between
one and 10 watts. For each proposal, the Commission sought comment on
the power levels associated with each class, the eligibility for such
stations and the effects that each class may have on the full power
radio service.
8. Comments. LP1000. Generally speaking, the proposal to authorize
LP1000 stations generated the most controversy among the commenters.
The topic was one of the few areas that generated opposition by both
current full service broadcasters and low power radio proponents,
although for different reasons. Commenters connected to the existing
broadcast industry and the Association of Federal Communications
Consulting Engineers (AFCCE) expressed their concerns regarding the
large potential for interference posed by such operations.
Additionally, AFCCE, as well as commenters that generally support the
LP1000 proposal, expressed concerns that the service could preclude
other lower powered LPFM stations. Most commenters supporting the
LP1000 proposal proposed to limit LP1000 stations to rural areas or
areas where sufficient spectrum could be found for both LP1000 and
LP100 classes of service.
9. LP100. The proposal for LP100 stations generated the most
positive comments. Commenters generally felt that LP100 stations would
provide a reasonable coverage area while remaining small enough to
continue focusing on local needs. From an engineering standpoint,
various commenters, stated that the LP100 proposal appears
``reasonable'' and the proposed power range would allow the use of
equipment, such as exciters and simple single bay antennas, that are
already available. Not all comments were favorable, however. In general
most negative comments shared the view stated by Disney that ``[a]
secondary LP100 service is undesirable for two reasons: first, because
it would be difficult to establish a procedural and enforcement
framework that would adequately protect FM broadcasters from
interference; and second, because LP100 stations would create only
marginal new radio listenership given the overriding levels of
interference they would receive from full service stations.''
10. LP10. The Commission's proposal for an LP10 service operating
with 10 watts or less elicited both highly favorable support and
vociferous opposition. Most support for the proposal came from
individuals and public interest groups. The comments in favor of LP10
generally viewed such a service as suitable for school campuses and
local community organizations that wish to serve small areas and do not
have the resources to construct and operate a higher-powered facility.
Furthermore, given what they saw as a smaller potential for
interference, these groups considered LP10 as the best option for
crowded urban areas where higher-powered facilities are not likely to
fit. On the other hand, most comments opposing the LP10 proposal came
from broadcasters and individuals concerned that the Commission would
not be able to enforce its rules against the numerous LP10 stations and
that widespread interference would result.
11. Decision. We will not authorize 1000 watt stations. We will,
however, authorize LP100 and LP10 stations, in two separate stages.
First, we will license LP100 stations. These stations generally will
provide coverage appropriate to community needs and interests expressed
in the record in this rule making. The Mass Media Bureau is delegated
authority to issue an initial and subsequent public notices inviting
the filing of applications for LP100 stations on dates consistent with
this Order and processing requirements. After a period of time
sufficient to process the initial LP100 applications, the Mass Media
Bureau is authorized to open a filing window for applications for LP10
stations, which can also serve very localized community needs. We adopt
this sequential process in order to provide the larger (100 watt)
stations with their greater service areas the first opportunity to
become established. Given that some LP10 stations can be sited where
LP100 stations cannot, we expect that opportunities will remain for
LP10 after the initial demand for LP100 stations has been accommodated.
Additionally, our own resources will be better spent first advancing
service to relatively greater areas.
12. However, the record, including comments from both current
broadcasters and public interest groups who were opposed to stations as
large as 1000 watts, convinces us that licensing such a service is not
in the public interest. As argued by commenters, 1000 watt stations may
pose a greater interference concern for existing broadcasters and are
not necessary to meet the most pressing and widespread demand for
service
[[Page 7618]]
expressed in the record. Moreover, LP1000 stations could have a
significant preclusive effect on the licensing of LP100 and LP10
stations. Yet, these lower powered stations will permit many more
opportunities for community-oriented service than would 1000-watt
stations.
1. LP100 Service
13. LP100 stations will be authorized to operate with maximum
facilities equivalent to 100 watts ERP at 30 meters (100 feet) HAAT and
minimum facilities equivalent to 50 watts at 30 meters (100 feet). This
would permit a maximum 1 mV/m contour (60 dBu) with a radius of
approximately 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles), subject to the radio
environment. Depending on population density, such a station could
serve hundreds or thousands of listeners. This service will allow LPFM
licensees to broadcast affordably to communities of moderate size and
interest groups that are geographically proximate, such as ethnic,
professional, industry and student groups, and retirement
neighborhoods. Spectrum rights and responsibilities for this service
are addressed below.
2. LP10 Service
14. LP10 stations will operate at between one and 10 watts ERP and
an antenna height of up to 30 meters (100 feet) HAAT. Such stations
will produce a 60 dBu signal out to about 1.6 to 3.2 kilometers (1 to 2
miles) from the antenna site. Such stations will fit in some locations
where LP100 stations cannot, due to separation requirements, and will
provide groups with the opportunity to operate stations that reach
smaller communities or groups with a common interest. Spectrum rights
and responsibilities for this service are addressed below.
C. Nature of Service and Licensees
1. Noncommercial Educational Service
15. Background. In proposing the creation of a new LPFM service,
the Commission set forth its goals of encouraging diverse voices on the
nation's airwaves and creating opportunities for new entrants in
broadcasting. We raised the question of whether the service should be
noncommercial in nature. We noted that while mutually exclusive
commercial broadcast applications are subject to auction, certain
noncommercial stations are specifically exempted from our auction
authority.
16. Comments. Of those commenters supporting LPFM, an overwhelming
majority endorsed establishing it as a noncommercial service.
Commenters stressed the diversity that would be created by a
noncommercial service, and argued that noncommercial radio is the best
way to serve local communities. Other commenters, however, argued that
low-power FM licensees should be available to both noncommercial and
commercial licensees.
17. Decision. We will establish LPFM as a noncommercial educational
service. Our goals in establishing this new service are to create
opportunities for new voices on the air waves and to allow local
groups, including schools, churches and other community-based
organizations, to provide programming responsive to local community
needs and interests. We believe that a noncommercial service is more
likely to fulfill this role effectively than a commercial service.
Commercial broadcast stations, by their very nature, have commercial
incentives to maximize audience size in order to improve their ratings
and thereby increase their advertising revenues. We are concerned that
these commercial incentives could frustrate achievement of our goal in
establishing this service: to foster a program service responsive to
the needs and interests of small local community groups, particularly
specialized community needs that have not been well served by
commercial broadcast stations. We believe that noncommercial licensees,
which are not subject to commercial imperatives to maximize audience
size, are more likely than commercial licensees to serve small, local
groups with particular shared needs and interests, such as linguistic
and cultural minorities or groups with shared civic or educational
interests that may now be underserved by advertiser-supported
commercial radio and higher powered noncommercial radio stations. We
note that commenters addressing this issue favored establishing LPFM as
a noncommercial service by a substantial margin, though some have
argued that a commercial service could provide ownership opportunities
for new entrants. While we have considered the entrepreneurial
opportunities that low power radio stations might create, we
nonetheless conclude that a noncommercial service would best serve the
Commission's goals of bringing additional diversity to radio
broadcasting and serving local community needs in a focused manner.
18. Establishing LPFM as a noncommercial service will have the
added benefit of giving us additional flexibility to assign licenses
for this service in a manner that is most likely to place them in the
hands of local community groups that are in the best position to serve
local community needs. As a general matter, where mutually exclusive
applications are filed for initial commercial licenses or construction
permits, the licenses or permits must be awarded by competitive bidding
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 309(j). Licenses for noncommercial educational
broadcast stations, as described in section 397(6) of the Act, however,
are not subject to competitive bidding. Accordingly, having decided to
establish LPFM as a noncommercial service, we will require that LPFM
licensees comply with the eligibility requirements of section 397(6) of
the Act.
19. Section 397(6) of the Act defines ``noncommercial educational
broadcast station'' as a station which:
(A) Under the rules and regulations of the Commission in effect on
the effective date of this paragraph, is eligible to be licensed by the
Commission as a noncommercial educational radio or television broadcast
station and which is owned and operated by a public agency or nonprofit
private foundation, corporation, or association; or
(B) Is owned and operated by a municipality and which transmits
only noncommercial programs for education purposes. Since the statute
incorporates by reference the Commission's noncommercial eligibility
rules, we must look to those rules in determining noncommercial
eligibility under section 397(6) of the Act. The Commission's rules
limit eligibility for noncommercial radio stations to nonprofit
educational organizations that show that the station will be used ``for
the advancement of an educational program.'' In applying this rule, the
Commission has required that applicants be (a) a government or public
educational agency, board or institution, or (b) a private, nonprofit
educational organization, or (c) a nonprofit entity with a demonstrated
educational purpose. We require that an applicant described in (a) or
(b) have an educational program and demonstrate how its programming
will be used for the advancement of that program. An applicant applying
as (c) must specifically show (i) that it is in fact a nonprofit
educational organization, (ii) that it has an educational objective,
and (iii) how its programming will further that objective.
20. The requirement that NCE licensees provide programming that
advances an educational objective may be satisfied by a variety of
programs, including but not limited to
[[Page 7619]]
``instructional programs, programming selected by students, bible
study, cultural programming, in-depth news coverage, and children's
programs such as Sesame Street that entertain as they teach.'' We have
also stated that ``in order to qualify as an educational station, it is
not necessary that the proposed programming be exclusively
educational.'' Given the latitude that entities have under our rules to
qualify as NCEs, we do not believe that limiting eligibility for LPFM
licenses to NCEs will unduly limit the range of groups that will be
eligible to apply for LPFM licenses or the services that they can
provide.
2. Public Safety and Transportation
21. Background. One appropriate use of LPFM stations is use by
public safety or transportation organizations. Although the NPRM did
not specifically raise this issue, a number of commenters proposed it.
22. Comments. We received a number of comments from public safety
and transportation entities arguing that they would use LPFM stations
to serve communities' need for public safety and traffic information.
23. Decision. The public safety and transportation commenters
propose important uses for low power FM stations. LPFM stations could
be used by state or local governments or other not-for-profit entities
to provide traffic, weather, and other public safety information to
local communities. The use of LPFM stations for public safety purposes
will further our goal of better serving local communities. Certain of
these entities already hold TIS or other broadcast licenses. We
emphasize, however, that we will not exempt these licenses from the
cross-ownership restrictions, described below, and will therefore
require TIS licensees or other public safety or transportation
licensees, to return their existing licenses upon the initiation of
LPFM service. Thus, in addition to noncommercial, educational
organizations, associations or entities as described above, public
safety radio services used by state or local governments or not-for-
profit organizations, as defined in 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(2)(A), will be
eligible for LPFM licenses.
D. Eligibility and Ownership
24. In order to further our diversity goals and foster local,
community-based service, we will not allow any broadcaster or other
media entity subject to our ownership rules to control or to hold an
attributable ownership interest in an LPFM station or enter broadcast
related operating agreements with an LPFM licensee. Additionally, to
foster the local nature of LPFM service, we are limiting eligibility to
local entities during the first two years LPFM licenses are available.
We are also adopting a significant local ownership preference to be
applied in resolving mutually exclusive applications. After local
entities have had an opportunity to apply for construction permits, we
will permit applications by qualified non-local applicants. After the
first two years, we will permit multiple ownership of LPFM stations
nationally, but only up to a maximum of 10 LPFM stations over a phased-
in period.
25. Throughout this discussion we use the term ``community'' in a
manner different from our traditional use of the term. Here, we use the
term to refer to the very small area and population group that will
make up the potential service area and audience of an LPFM station.
Given the very small nature of LPFM service contours and prospective
audiences, we do not expect LPFM service areas to be coincident with
traditional political boundaries that we use to define communities in
other contexts, such as our allocations process.
1. Cross-Ownership Restrictions
26. Background. In the NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded
that strict cross-ownership restrictions would be appropriate for low
power radio. We proposed to prohibit any person or entity with an
attributable interest in a broadcast station from having an ownership
interest in any LPFM station in any market. We sought comment on
whether the proposed strict cross-ownership restrictions would
unnecessarily prevent individuals and entities with valuable broadcast
experience from contributing to the success of the LPFM service. We
also asked for comment on whether broadcasters with an attributable
interest in broadcasting stations should be allowed to establish an
LPFM station in a community where they do not have an attributable
broadcast interest. We proposed to prohibit joint sales agreements,
time brokerage agreements, local marketing or management agreements,
and similar arrangements between full power broadcasters and low power
radio entities. We also sought comment on whether the cross-ownership
restriction should be extended to prevent common ownership of LPFM
stations with cable systems, newspapers, or other mass media.
27. Comments. Several commercial broadcasters, educational
broadcasters and individuals propose that cross ownership be allowed.
Some commenters propose that current broadcasters be allowed to apply
for LPFM stations, but that they should be required to give up their
current station license prior to initiating operations at the LPFM
station. Others propose that full service station owners not be barred,
so long as the LPFM station is in another market.
28. Most commenters, however, oppose cross-ownership of full-
service stations and LPFM stations. Most commenters also support the
Commission's proposal to prohibit arrangements between full service
broadcasters and LPFM entities, such as joint sales and time brokerage
agreements.
29. Decision. We will prohibit common ownership of LPFM and any
other broadcast station, including translators and low power television
stations, as well as other media subject to our ownership rules. See:
47 CFR 73.3555, 76.501.) Thus, no broadcaster or other media entity, or
any party with an attributable interest in them, can hold any
attributable ownership interest in an LPFM licensee. One of the most
important purposes of establishing this service is to afford small,
community-based organizations an opportunity to communicate over the
airwaves and thus expand diversity of ownership--a purpose inconsistent
with common ownership of LPFM stations and existing broadcast
facilities or other media interests. Moreover, many of the commenters'
remarks favoring cross ownership are directed to the establishment of
the proposed LP1000 service. These arguments regarding efficiencies and
economies and competitive standing for stations that might compete
commercially, however, are less applicable to noncommercial educational
LP100 and LP10 stations. Similarly, our own expressed concern that
cross-ownership limits could retard the development of low power radio
by excluding entities with broadcast experience is less pressing in the
absence of commercial 1000 watt stations. We conclude that our interest
in providing for new voices to speak to the community, and providing a
medium for new speakers to gain experience in the field, would be best
served by barring cross-ownership between LPFM licensees and existing
broadcast owners and other media entities. This prohibition is national
and absolute in nature, unlike our existing cross-media ownership
rules. Thus, for example, a newspaper cannot have an attributable
interest in any LPFM station, regardless of whether the newspaper and
LPFM station are co-located. We believe our interest in
[[Page 7620]]
promoting diversity warrants such a strict approach.
30. We have also decided to prohibit operating agreements in any
form, including time brokerage agreements, local marketing or
management agreements, and similar arrangements, between full power
broadcasters and LPFM broadcasters, or between two or more low power
licensees. Many commenters strongly oppose allowing any form of
operating agreement that would dilute new ownership in the low power
service. We are concerned that such agreements too readily could
undermine the strict cross-ownership restriction adopted by allowing an
ineligible entity to program or manage an LPFM station. We see no harm,
however, in permitting any existing licensee to apply for an LPFM
station on the condition that it is otherwise qualified and it
represents that it will divest its interest prior to commencement of
LPFM operations.
2. Requirement That Applicant Be Community-Based
31. Background. In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether to
establish a local residency requirement, although we were not inclined,
at that time, to do so. We were concerned that a residency requirement
would limit the pool of potential owners of low power stations and
would deny opportunity to individuals and entities who resided in a
location where no frequency is available, as there will not be low
power frequencies available in every community. We also noted that we
expected in the case of LP100s and LP10 stations, in particular, that
the very nature of the stations would attract primarily local or nearby
residents. We note that given our decision to restrict eligibility to
noncommercial educational entities, the term ``residency'' is somewhat
misleading. The issue now is whether we should limit applicants to
entities based within the local community they wish to serve and, if
so, how we should define whether or not they are community-based.
Nonetheless, given that the NPRM and comments are cast in terms of
residency, we will continue to use the term, but do so in the
organizational or institutional sense noted here.
32. Comments. Most commenters support a requirement that LPFM
licensees be locally based. They argue that local residents are more
likely to be aware of issues of importance to the local community, and
to gear their programming accordingly. On the other hand, many
commenters oppose the imposition of a residency requirement. Some argue
that a local residency requirement would be struck down under the
standards set forth by Bechtel v. FCC. Some point out that a residency
requirement is incompatible with a five-to ten-station national
ownership cap.
33. Decision. We continue to be concerned about the potentially
preclusive effect of a strict local ``residency'' requirement and do
not believe that local sources are the only valuable sources of
information and service. Nonetheless, this service is intended to
respond to the highly local interests that are not necessarily being
met by full-power stations. Furthermore, since LPFM will be a
noncommercial educational service, we cannot rely on commercial market
forces and business incentives to ensure that local needs are
fulfilled. Given the small coverage of LPFM stations, and our intention
that the particular needs and interests of these small areas be served,
local familiarity is more significant than it might be for a station
serving a larger area and population. We thus conclude, after
consideration of the comments and on further reflection, that the
disadvantages of imposing a requirement that applicants be community-
based are outweighed by the benefits to be gained by maximizing the
likelihood that LPFM stations are operated by entities grounded in the
communities they serve. Accordingly, for the initial and subsequent
windows opened within two years after the first filing window for LPFM
service has been opened, all LPFM applicants must be based within 10
miles of the station they seek to operate. This means that the
applicant must be able to certify that it or its local chapter or
branch is physically headquartered, has a campus, or has 75 percent of
its board members residing within 10 miles of the reference coordinates
of the proposed transmitting antenna. We chose the 10-mile distance as
proportionate to most stations' likely effective reach. We are
concerned that a larger distance, in many areas of the country, could
lead to ownership outside the bounds of the station's real community
and the people they will actually serve. We are concerned that a
smaller area would too severely and unduly restrict the opportunities
presented by LPFM. An organization providing public safety radio
services will be considered community-based in the area over which it
has jurisdiction. Beginning two years after the first window for LPFM
service has been opened, non-local applicants will be eligible to apply
in subsequent windows for those classes of stations pursuant to public
notices issued by the Mass Media Bureau. By this approach, we intend to
make it more likely that local entities will operate this service. If
no local entities come forward, however, we do not want the available
spectrum to go unused.
34. We do not find convincing the argument made by some commenters
that imposition of a local residency eligibility requirement here would
pose the same legal problems as the ``integration of ownership and
management'' factor formerly employed as a comparative criterion in the
commercial broadcast service. While that comparative criterion was
overturned as arbitrary and capricious in the Bechtel case, that case
did not invalidate a preference for locally based applicants per se.
Rather, it rejected a preference for a particular form of business
organization--in which station owners worked more than a certain number
of hours per week at their station--that had not been shown to provide
superior service even though the preference had been used for many
years. The preference for local licensees here, in contrast, rests on
our predictive judgment that local entities with their roots in the
community will be more attuned and responsive to the needs of that
community, which have heretofore been underserved by commercial
broadcasters. We believe that local residence should carry particular
weight here because we envision LPFM as a uniquely local service
designed to serve local community needs. We note that while the court
invalidated the integration criterion in the Bechtel decision, it
recognized that an applicant who is familiar with the community is
likely to be aware of its special needs.
35. Furthermore, we believe that local roots are particularly
important in a noncommercial educational service like LPFM. As noted
above, we cannot rely on commercial market forces to ensure that LPFM
licensees are responsive to local needs because they will be
noncommercial entities providing noncommercial program services.
Indeed, Congress and the Commission have long recognized the unique
role played by local entities in providing noncommercial educational
programming, and we have favored local entities in providing other
noncommercial educational services.
36. Finally, we do not believe that our preference for local
applicants here raises the concerns voiced by the court in Bechtel. The
court was concerned in Bechtel that the integration preference elevated
quantitative factors--the number of hours the station owners promised
to work at the station--over arguably more important qualitative
factors such as broadcast experience and
[[Page 7621]]
established local residence. In contrast, the community-based
requirement that we adopt today does not rest on quantitative factors
and is not based on promises of future conduct. Rather, we are adopting
a simple, straightforward requirement that applicants be based in the
local community. In addition, a primary concern underlying the court's
decision was that there was no obligation for a successful applicant in
the commercial broadcast service to adhere to its integration proposal,
and there was no evidence indicating the extent to which licensees had
done so in the past. In contrast, LPFM licenses will not be
transferable, so we can be assured that a local entity that is awarded
the license will continue to operate the station. For these reasons, we
do not believe that the community-based requirement that we adopt today
suffers from the problems identified by the court in the Bechtel
decision.
3. National Ownership Limits
37. Background. In the NPRM, we also sought comment on the issue of
a national multiple ownership cap. In particular, we asked whether a
limit of five or ten stations nationally would provide a reasonable
opportunity to attain efficiencies of operation while preserving the
availability of the stations to a wide range of applicants and their
essentially local character.
38. Comments. Comments on this issue are wide-ranging in their
opinions. Some groups favor an absolute nationwide one-station-per-
owner limit, arguing that a one-station-per-entity cap would distribute
the low power stations as widely as possible and create the opportunity
for the most diverse ownership. Some commenters support a less strict
national cap, arguing that some national cap will promote greater
diversity in the service, but that a one-per-owner limit is excessively
restrictive. Several commenters agree with the Commission's suggested
range of five to ten stations, nationally. Finally, some groups oppose
any type of national cap.
39. Decision. We are adopting a staged rule, which will initially
foster diversity by disallowing any common ownership of LPFM stations,
but eventually permit the accumulation of additional stations where
local applicants fail to come forward. This will increase the service
available to the public and permit the efficiencies that can be
achieved by multiple ownership where there is not an immediate local
interest in operating a station. To achieve this, we will require that
for the first two years of LPFM service, any one entity may own only
one LPFM station. The two year-long period will begin on the day that
the first LP100 filing window opens for applications. After the first
two years, to bring into use whatever low power stations remain
available but unapplied for, we will allow one entity to own up to five
stations nationally, and after the first three years of this service,
we will allow an entity to own up to ten stations nationwide.
40. In addition to ensuring the fullest use of LPFM spectrum in the
long term, we believe that this tiered system will balance the
interests of local entities, which we expect to be the first entrants
in this service, and national noncommercial educational entities, which
may be interested in additional local outlets to increase their reach
and to achieve certain efficiencies of operation. We note the
attribution exception for national or other large entities with local
community-based chapters, discussed below in the attribution section,
which will allow the local chapters to apply as individual entities and
thus not be constrained by this national ownership provision.
41. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that Section 202 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act) eliminating national
multiple ownership restrictions for existing full power commercial
stations does not apply to a new broadcast service. Given our decision
to limit LPFM to noncommercial educational broadcasters, section 202
clearly does not apply to LPFM and we need not discuss this issue
further.
4. Local Ownership Limits
42. Background. In the NPRM, we proposed to prohibit entities from
owning more than one LPFM station in the same community. We were
concerned that it would be difficult to achieve wide new entry into the
broadcasting market and enhance diversity if more than one low power
station in an area were under common control. At the same time, we
sought comment on whether such a restriction would inappropriately deny
to LPFM licensees the efficiencies achievable through multiple
ownership, and on what cooperative arrangements might facilitate the
development of LPFM service without unduly diluting its benefits. We
also sought comment on the appropriate definition of ``market'' or
``community'' for the purposes of LPFM service.
43. Comments. Many commenters agree strongly with the Commission's
proposal that LPFM ownership should be limited to one station per
community. They argue that allowing multiple ownership in a local area
would reduce the number and diminish the diversity of new entrants.
Most contend that the demand for stations from local owners will be
plentiful and that there will be no need to allow outside owners to own
low power stations. A few commenters address the issue of the
definition of ``community'' for the purpose of determining the
limitations of local ownership but none offered specific alternative
definitions. Some commenters expressed concern that the current
Commission definition of a ``community'' is ambiguous and therefore
subject to inequitable application.
44. Decision. We will restrict local ownership and allow one entity
to own only one LPFM station in a ``community.'' We concur with those
commenters who expressed concern over the potential for diminution of
diversity in ownership if one entity were allowed to control more than
one station in their community. The comments opposing the restriction
seem directed to and more appropriate in the context of the proposed
1000 watt service, which could have operated commercially. The primary
benefit of local multiple ownership, increased efficiency, is less
compelling with respect to LP100 and LP10 noncommercial educational
stations, particularly as compared to the benefit to a community of
multiple community-based voices. As noted, we use the term community in
this Report and Order to refer to the very small population group that
makes up a station's potential audience. For purposes of the local
ownership limits, we will require that no entity own or have an
attributable interest in two or more LPFM stations located within 7
miles of each other. That is, to comply with our local ownership
limits, the antennas of commonly-owned stations must be separated by at
least seven miles. We believe seven miles is appropriate given the
approximately 3.5 mile signal reach of LP100 stations. Although the
signal reach of LP10 stations is smaller, for the sake of simplicity we
will apply the seven-mile ownership separation to both classes of
service.
45. In the NPRM we noted that section 202 of the 1996 Act permitted
significant local multiple ownership of full power commercial radio
stations but questioned whether this standard would apply to a new low
power service. Our decision here, however, to limit LPFM stations to
noncommercial educational service renders this question moot. As
discussed above regarding the national multiple ownership issue,
section 202, by its
[[Page 7622]]
terms, does not apply to noncommercial stations.
46. We note that the attribution exception for local chapters of
national entities, discussed in the next section, will allow local
chapters to apply as individual entities and thus avoid the bar that
the national ownership rules would otherwise impose.
5. Attribution
47. Background. Given the significance we have accorded the
ownership of LPFM stations, the strict cross-and multiple-ownership
rules and the community-based eligibility and selection criteria we are
adopting, determining who ``owns'' or constitutes a low power radio
applicant or licensee is critically important. In the NPRM, we sought
comment on what interests or relationships should be attributable in
this regard.
48. Comments. Comments on attribution vary widely. Some commenters
express concern that if the existing attribution rules were applied to
these stations, some entities with large national organizations and
small chapters would be unable to hold multiple licenses even though
they maintain a local presence and would provide community-oriented
programming. Other commenters propose that attribution rules be waived
in the case of accredited educational institutions, so that they can
hold a full power station and also an LPFM station.
49. Decision. We will apply rules similar to the existing
commercial attribution rules to determine a licensee's compliance with
the ownership limits set forth above. Because many of the entities that
will hold LPFM licenses will be non-stock corporations (or other non-
stock entities), we will attribute the interests of the applicant, its
parents, its subsidiaries, their officers and members of their
governing boards. If an entity that holds an LPFM license does have
stock, then the existing attribution rules will apply and voting stock
interest of 5% or more will be attributable unless the investor is
passive in nature, in which case voting stock interests of 20% or more
will be attributable. Partners and non-insulated limited partners are
attributable, as are officers and directors. Non-voting stock and debt
are not attributable unless they satisfy the ``equity-debt-plus''
standards set forth in our recent attribution order. Thus, for example,
if a full-power broadcaster in a community were to invest in an LPFM
licensee in that same community and the investment accounted for more
than 33% of the LPFM's total capitalization, the investment would be
attributable and would violate the cross-ownership ban discussed above.
Similarly, if a director of the same full power broadcaster were to act
as an officer of the LPFM, the director would be attributed with both
stations and would violate the ban. Consistent with the existing
commercial attribution rules, however, an exception will apply to
certain officers and directors of the parent of an LPFM applicant or
licensee. Such an officer or director may hold otherwise attributable
interests in a broadcast licensee or other media entity subject to our
ownership rules without making the LPFM applicant ineligible, provided
the duties and responsibilities of the officer or director are wholly
unrelated to the LPFM station and the officer or director recuses
himself or herself from consideration of any matters affecting the LPFM
station. This exception will avoid making ineligible entities that will
serve the purposes of this service well, such as universities or
schools, which may have large and diverse board membership, while
protecting against control of an LPFM licensee by ineligible media
owners. For the same reason, in the LPFM context we will extend the
exception to officers and directors of the LPFM applicant or licensee
itself, if that entity is a multifaceted organization, such as a
university, and the duties and responsibilities of the officer or
director are wholly unrelated to the LPFM station and the officer or
director recuses himself or herself from consideration of any matters
affecting the LPFM station. We emphasize that these exceptions are
narrow in scope. An individual holding an attributable media interest
may not act as an officer of the LPFM station, nor function in any
other attributable role.
50. We will, moreover, include an attribution exception for local
chapters of national or other large organizations. In the event that a
local chapter can demonstrate that it: (1) Is separately incorporated,
and (2) has a distinct local presence and mission, the local chapter
can apply for a license in its own right and the national entity's
``ownership'' will not be attributed to it. In order to meet this
standard, the local entity must be able to show a significant
membership within the community, as well as a local purpose that can be
distinguished from its national purpose. For example, the general
purpose of raising awareness of the toxic waste problem in the United
States would not suffice, but raising awareness of the toxic waste
problem in particular local areas would meet the local purpose
standard.
6. General Character Qualifications and Unlicensed Broadcasters
51. Background. In the NPRM, we generally proposed to apply the
same standards for character qualification requirements to all LPFM
broadcasters as we do to full power broadcasters. The Commission asked
if commenters saw any reason to distinguish between full and low power
radio licensees for this purpose. In addition, we sought comment on
whether to disqualify unlicensed broadcasters who once violated or who
still are violating Commission rules. We sought comment on whether the
Commission should adopt a middle ground and accept applications from
parties who have broadcast illegally, but who either (1) promptly
ceased operation when advised by the Commission to do so, or (2)
voluntarily ceased operation within ten days of the publication of the
NPRM in the Federal Register.
52. Comments. Many individuals insist that without radio
``pirates,'' LPFM would not have been created. Others, such as Amherst
and UCC, et al., support the middle ground set forth in the NPRM,
saying that it is most fair to the interests of future low power
broadcasters and to the public. Many commenters believe that anyone who
has operated illegally should not be eligible for a license. Some
object to restricting parties with an interest in a broadcast station
from owning an LPFM station, but allowing ``pirates'' to own them.
53. Decision. We have decided, as we proposed, to apply the same
character qualification requirements to low power station licensees as
we currently apply to full power licensees. The Commission's character
policy is underpinned by our interest in a licensee's truthfulness and
reliability. We have a critical need to ascertain whether a licensee
will in the future be forthright in its dealings with the Commission
and operate its station in a manner consistent with the requirements of
the Communications Act and the Commission's rules and policies. No
commenter showed a reason to distinguish between full and low power
broadcasters on this basis, and we do not believe one exists.
54. The most significant specific question that character concerns
raise in the context of this proceeding, as discussed in the NPRM, is
how past illegal broadcast operations reflect on that entity's
proclivity ``to deal truthfully with the Commission and to comply with
our rules and policies,'' and thus on its basic qualifications to hold
a license. We are persuaded to
[[Page 7623]]
adopt our original proposal and accept a low power applicant who, if it
at some time broadcast illegally, certifies, under penalty of perjury,
that: (1) It voluntarily ceased engaging in the unlicensed operation of
any station no later than February 26, 1999, without specific direction
to terminate by the FCC; or (2) it ceased engaging in the unlicensed
operation of any facility within 24 hours of being advised by the
Commission to do so. Applicants will be required to make such
certifications as part of their applications for an LPFM station. Such
certifications will be made with respect to the applicant as well as
all parties to the application (i.e., any party with an attributable
interest in the applicant). Submission of false or misleading
certifications will subject the applicant to enforcement action
including fines, revocation of license and criminal penalties.
55. Contrary to some commenters arguments, this rule does not
unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment rights of unlicensed
broadcasters. Disqualification under this rule is based solely on lack
of compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. All parties
should note, however, that as licensed broadcasters, ignorance,
whatever its cause, is not considered an excuse for violation, and full
compliance with our rules will be required. Moreover, as implied by the
provisions of the NPRM, the illegality of unauthorized broadcasting
must now be presumed to be well-known, and any unlicensed broadcast
operation occurring more than 10 days after the NPRM was issued will
make the applicant ineligible for low power, full power, or any other
kind of license and will be subject to fines, seizure of their
equipment, and criminal penalties.
E. Technical Rules
1. Spectrum for Low Power Radio
56. Background. In the NPRM, the Commission stated that it did not
intend to allocate new spectrum for a low power radio broadcasting
service. The utilization of new spectrum would require listeners to
purchase new equipment to receive the service, which would
significantly delay the benefits of the service to the public. We
proposed to authorize low power radio stations within the FM band only.
This determination was based partly on the extent of congestion within
the AM band, with numerous existing stations experiencing significant
interference. Furthermore, we recognized that low power AM stations
were capable of causing significantly higher levels of interference as
a result of AM signal propagation characteristics. With regard to the
use of the FM band, we concluded that the large number of existing FM
stations precluded us from designating any specific frequencies for
LPFM service, as no such channels are available throughout the country.
Thus we sought comment on whether we should allow LPFM stations to
operate throughout the entire band or restrict the reserved portion of
the FM band (Channels 201-220) for noncommercial educational (NCE)
stations. We also contemplated that low power radio stations would
desire to use auxiliary broadcast frequencies, where available--for
example, for studio-to-transmitter links and transmissions of remote
broadcasts--and sought comment in this regard.
57. Comments. No commenters specifically supported the allocation
of new spectrum for the proposed service. Many commenters agreed that
existing interference within the AM band and the relative complexity of
AM facilities should preclude consideration of a low power AM service.
Some commenters, however, argue that an AM low power station should be
an option in areas where the FM spectrum is too crowded to permit new
stations. With regard to the FM band, most commenters support the view
that the reserved band should continue to be reserved for NCE use only.
However, several other commenters are particularly concerned that the
introduction of numerous new stations in the reserved band would
potentially increase interference to existing stations, especially in
areas beyond their protected contours. At the same time, other
commenters expressed the desire to allow NCE low power stations
throughout the FM band.
58. Decision. We will authorize low power radio stations throughout
the FM band, where the stations will fit, but not in the AM band.
Although FM band crowding may preclude or limit LPFM opportunities in
certain markets, we are not persuaded that the creation of an AM low
power radio service is warranted. We note that we are adopting minimum
distance separations between LPFM and full-service stations based upon
the assumption that full service stations operate with maximum height
and power for their class. Therefore, an LPFM station would generally
provide greater protection to stations operating in the reserved band
than that afforded to them by other full service stations, for which
station facilities are spaced more closely on the basis of the contour
protection methodology. Because LPFM stations will be licensed
throughout the FM band, they will not be concentrated in the reserved
portion of the FM spectrum. We note, however, that LPFM stations,
regardless of their location in the FM band, are reserved to qualified
NCEs. We will apply the same interference protection and other
technical standards for LPFM operations in the reserved and nonreserved
bands. This will facilitate application processing and uniform LPFM
technical operating requirements.
59. In view of their relatively smaller service areas, we believe
that most LPFM stations will co-locate program origination and
transmission facilities. As a result, these stations would not require
studio-to-transmitter links (STL) between these facilities. However, we
will not foreclose LPFM operators the use of broadcast auxiliary
frequencies used by full-service radio stations for this purpose. LPFM
stations may also desire to air programming relayed from a remote
location, such as an athletic event, or in connection with news
gathering. Generally, we will permit entities authorized to operate
LPFM stations to use remote pickup frequencies and radio broadcast
auxiliary frequencies in the manner in which full-service stations use
these frequencies, pursuant to the technical rules and procedures given
in subparts D and E of part 74 of our rules. However, we will require
that LPFM operations on auxiliary frequencies be secondary to that of
full-service broadcast stations and other primary users, given the
congestion of frequency use in some locales. We note that TV auxiliary
frequencies are licensed to low power TV stations on this basis. An
entity seeking to operate an LPFM station may apply for broadcast
auxiliary license only after it has been authorized to construct the
LPFM station.
2. LPFM Spectrum Rights and Responsibilities
60. Background. In the NPRM, we raised issues regarding the
spectrum priority of the contemplated classes of LPFM service. We
recognized that our resolution of these issues would affect where LPFM
stations could locate and the stability of their operations.
Additionally, LPFM interference protection rights and responsibilities
could affect existing and future FM radio service. The NPRM proposed a
1000-watt primary service and a 100-watt secondary service. It sought
comment on a 10-watt class of LPFM station that would be secondary to
all other FM radio services. As proposed, LP100 and LP10 stations would
not be permitted to interfere within the protected service contours of
existing
[[Page 7624]]
and future primary stations and would not be protected against
interference from these stations. We sought comment on whether LP100
stations should be permitted to select channels without regard to
interference received and on the extent to which LP100 stations should
protect FM translator and booster stations.
61. Comments: Given our decision not to create a 1000-watt LPFM
station class, this summary is limited to the issue of spectrum
priorities for LP100 and LP10 stations. The comments were divided on
whether LPFM stations should have a primary or secondary regulatory
status. Several commenters supported primary status for all LPFM
stations, mainly to help ensure their survival. Some commenters
supported a modified form of primary status for LPFM. Other commenters,
including some broadcast licensees, supported a secondary status for
LPFM stations.
62. Decision. In crafting interference protection rights and
responsibilities for an LPFM service, we seek to balance our vital
interest in maintaining the technical integrity of existing radio
services with our desire to create a supple and viable community-
oriented radio service. First and foremost, we must require that new
LPFM stations protect radio reception within the service areas of
existing full-service stations, as well as the existing services of FM
translator and booster stations. Second, LPFM stations, with their much
smaller service areas and fewer service regulations, should not prevent
FM stations from modifying or upgrading their facilities, nor should
they preclude opportunities for new full-service stations.
Additionally, LPFM applications will be required to protect vacant FM
allotments. Subject to these constraints, however, we want to foster a
stable and enduring LPFM service. Once an LPFM station is built and
operating, we wish to permit it to continue operating on its channel,
wherever possible, as the radio environment changes around it. We want
to minimize, to the extent possible, the situations in which we would
require an LPFM station to change its channel or cease operating. This
measure of stability, we believe, would assist LPFM station applicants
or operators in obtaining financing to construct and operate stations
and to better serve their communities. It may also create an incentive
for the operation of a first local radio station in many communities or
radio service that would be responsive to other unmet needs. We believe
the approach set forth below appropriately balances the above
objectives.
63. Protection to existing FM radio services: Applicants for new or
modified LP100 or LP10 facilities will be required to meet minimum
station separation distances to protect the service contours of
authorized commercial and noncommercial FM stations of all classes,
including Class D. In the same manner, they will be required to protect
the existing service of FM translator and booster stations and LP100
stations. We will also require LPFM applicants to protect full-service
FM, FM translator and LP100 facilities proposed in applications (for
example, FM minor change applications) filed before a public notice
announcing an LPFM application filing window. Applications filed after
the release date of an LPFM window notice will not be protected against
LPFM applications filed in that window. However, full-service
applicants will not be required to protect the facilities proposed in
LPFM applications. We believe this approach fairly balances the
interests of full-service and LPFM applicants. LPFM station proposals
to operate on channels 201-220 will also be required to protect
television stations operating on TV Channel 6. Applicants for LP100
stations will not be required to protect authorized LP10 stations or
LP10 application proposals, given the relatively smaller service areas
of LP10 stations.
64. The extent of interference protection from LPFM stations to
existing FM, LPFM and FM translator and booster service generally will
be that afforded by minimum station separation requirements. These were
designed to provide the same degree of interference protection that
full-service stations provide each other. We have added a 20-kilometer
buffer to the separations for protecting co-channel and first adjacent
channel full-service stations. This buffer will help to protect FM
radio facilities that were modified or upgraded in a manner that would
create a short-spacing with an operating LPFM station. LPFM stations
will not be required to eliminate interference caused to FM stations by
their lawful operations. They will, however, be required to eliminate
interference caused by operations that violate the terms of the
station's authorization or the Commission's Rules; for example,
radiation of excessive emissions outside of the station's authorized
channel. LPFM station operators will also be required to respond to
complaints of ``blanketing'' interference. They will also be subject to
international agreements regarding the elimination of interference to
primary Canadian or Mexican broadcast stations. Until these agreements
are modified, we believe it is appropriate to apply to LPFM stations
the international provisions applicable to FM translators, which
operate at comparable power levels.
65. LPFM rights and responsibilities with respect to subsequently
modified, upgraded or new full-service FM stations. We are not adopting
for the LPFM service many of the regulations applicable to full-service
stations; for example LPFM stations will not be required to have a main
studio. LPFM stations also will service much smaller areas than full-
service stations. For these reasons, we do not believe that an LPFM
station should be given an interference protection right that would
prevent a full-service station from seeking to modify its transmission
facilities or upgrade to a higher service class. Nor should LPFM
stations foreclose opportunities to seek new full-service radio
stations. Accordingly, operating LPFM stations will not be protected
against interference from subsequently authorized full-service facility
modifications, upgrades, or new FM stations. Because we will not
protect LPFM from future FM facilities, we will not require LPFM
applicants to meet minimum distance separation requirements to protect
their service areas against interference received. However, as a guide
to LPFM applicants, the attached rules includes minimum station
separation distances necessary to protect an LPFM station's 60 dBu
contour.
66. We expressed our desire to provide a measure of stability to
operating LPFM stations. For this purpose, we will permit LPFM stations
to continue operating even though they would cause interference within
the protected service contours of a subsequent authorized FM service,
including new stations and facilities modifications or upgrades of
existing stations. In such situations, the LPFM operator would decide
whether interference received to its service would permit the station
to continue operating on its channel. However, we must make one
exception to this policy. FM stations have a core responsibility to
service their principal communities. Therefore, we will not permit an
operating LPFM station to cause interference within a commercial or NCE
FM station's 3.16 mV/m (70 dB) contour. This issue can only arise in
connection with a subsequently filed full-service new station or
modification application. If grant of such an application would result
in predicted interference within the 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour of the
proposed station,
[[Page 7625]]
the affected LPFM station will be provided an opportunity to
demonstrate that interference is unlikely to occur within this contour
due to, for example, terrain shielding. If the LPFM station fails to
make a sufficient showing, it will be directed to cease operations upon
the commencement of program tests by the commercial or NCE FM station.
67. We recognize that actual interference within the 3.16 mV/m
contour might still be possible where the LPFM station has demonstrated
that it is unlikely. In these circumstances, a complaint of actual
interference must be served on the LPFM station and filed with the
Commission, attention Audio Services Division. The LPFM station must
suspend operations within twenty-four hours of the receipt of a
complaint unless the interference has been eliminated by the
application of suitable techniques and to the satisfaction of the
complainant. An LPFM station may resume operations only at the
direction of the Commission. If the Commission determines that a
complainant has refused to permit the LPFM station to apply remedial
techniques that demonstrably will eliminate the interference without
impairment of the original reception of the full-service station, the
licensee of the LPFM station will be absolved of further
responsibility. As a practical matter we believe that in many cases
involving FM station modifications or upgrades, interference to new or
expanded areas will be offset by the conservative separation distances
met by the LPFM station when it was initially authorized, particularly
because of the 20-kilometer interference protection buffer.
3. Minimum Distance Separation Requirements
68. Background. The NPRM tentatively concluded that minimum
distance separation requirements for LPFM stations would provide the
most efficient means to process a large number of applications while
ensuring the overall technical integrity of the FM service. We proposed
minimum spacings to protect full-service station operation on the same
channel, first-adjacent channel and intermediate frequency (IF)
channels. We proposed to exclude third-adjacent channel protection and
questioned the need for second-adjacent channel spacing requirements.
We noted that the use of a contour overlap methodology could
significantly delay the implementation of the LPFM service because it
would require substantial preparation on the part of applicants and the
Commission and would increase the processing burden on the staff. The
NPRM included spacing tables for the proposed LPFM classes based on the
interference protection ratios that underlie full-service radio
separations and the assumption that stations operate at the maximum
height and power for their station class. We sought comment on the
accuracy of the specific values listed in these tables. In addition, we
requested comment as to whether alternate approaches, including contour
overlap methodology and/or more sophisticated terrain modeling
programs, should be used at a later time, based on our initial
experience in authorizing LPFM service.
69. Comments. No comments challenge any of the specific values
listed in our proposed minimum distance separation tables. However, one
suggests an alternate methodology based upon a full service station's
44 dBu F(50,50) protected service contour, instead of the 60 dBu
contour that defines the protected service contours for all NCE and
many commercial stations. Although it does not calculate distance
separations, some commenters argue that our separation requirements
should protect actual service areas beyond protected contours. Several
commenters urged either the use of a contour overlap methodology or a
combination of contour overlap and separation requirements in order to
accommodate the licensing of additional LPFM stations.
70. Decision. We recognize that a distance separation methodology
will preclude new LPFM stations in some areas. However, we are not
persuaded that the potential benefit of some additional stations is
substantial enough to warrant the preparation of more complex and
costly engineering exhibits based on contour protection and the
resulting delays in the authorization of LPFM service. Therefore, we
are adopting minimum separation requirements for the LPFM service as
the means of protecting full service commercial and noncommercial
educational stations. We also adopt spacing rules to protect FM
translator stations and other LPFM stations, as well as a spacing table
for LPFM stations operating on Channels 201 through 220 with respect to
protection of TV Channel 6. As we proposed in the NPRM, we will not
establish minimum separations between LPFM stations that operate two or
three channels apart. Special case spacing tables are also being
adopted for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Additionally,
appropriate spacings will be used for the approximately 20
``grandfathered superpowered'' stations operating in the reserved band.
Superpowered stations will be protected under the distance separations
for the class of station that most closely approximates its facilities.
This determination will be made based upon the stations 1 m V/m
reference contour and the procedures for determining class listed in
Sec. 73.211. LPFM applicants should be mindful of the fact that the
minimum separation distances being adopted will not protect LPFM
stations against interference from the full service stations, but are
designed to prevent the LPFM station from causing interference to the
protected service areas of full-service FM and other protected
stations. However, as a guide to LPFM applicants, we are including in
the rules a table giving the minimum separations necessary to avoid
interference within the LPFM station service areas.
71. The minimum distance separation requirements that we adopt here
for LPFM stations do not apply to full-service stations and FM
translators. To prevent subsequently filed FM translator stations from
causing interference to existing LPFM stations, we will expand the
current FM translator interference protection rules to include a
requirement that previously authorized LPFM stations be protected. As
noted, we will permit a full service station to modify its facility in
a manner that reduces these separations to LPFM stations. However, in
such cases we generally will not require the LPFM station to cease
operation. Instead, the affected stations will have to bear any
interference caused by facilities changes, such as an FM transmitter
site move. However, so as to reduce the potential impact on the
affected stations, the spacing rules we adopt today include a 20 km
``buffer'' for co-channel and first-adjacent channel LPFM-to-full-
service-FM stations. This additional separation is included for two
reasons. First of all, we recognize that the FM band is not static. For
example, broadcast stations often change transmitter sites to provide
better service to their communities and service areas. Same-station-
class transmitter site moves are generally less than 20 km from the
original site. Therefore, inclusion of the 20 km buffer spacing allows
full-service stations room to move while also reducing the potential
impact on existing LPFM stations. Second, and equally important, the
additional separation affords the LPFM station an increased likelihood
that its operation would not cause interference within a full service
station's community of license. This additional 20 km separation will
apply
[[Page 7626]]
only to the initial establishment of the LPFM station. Subsequent site
moves by the LPFM station would either need to meet this distance
separation requirement, or if the existing spacing were already less
than this amount due to a prior site move by a full service station,
the spacing could not be less than the currently existing separation.
72. International Coordination Provisions. We are also adopting
provisions for LP10 and LP100 stations which lie within 320 km of the
Canadian or Mexican borders, consonant with existing international
agreements between the respective countries. We will apply the existing
FM translator rule, 47 CFR 74.1235, and current international
coordination procedures to LPFM stations in these areas. In the rules,
we include distance separation tables that were intended to ensure
compliance with the appropriate international agreements. We will adopt
these tables to the extent that foreign stations are provided the
appropriate protection. We have also derived similar tables for LP10
stations. We will only accept LPFM proposals that meet these distances.
Such proposals will be coordinated as required by the pertinent
agreements. In addition, LP10 and LP100 applicants in the U.S. Virgin
Islands should be aware that international coordination may be required
with the British Virgin Islands in some instances.
4. Second and Third Adjacent Channel Protection
73. Background. In the NPRM we sought comment on the interference
protection criteria to be used to govern the authorization of low power
radio services. We stated that low power stations would be subject to
existing co-channel and 1st-adjacent channel protections but that to
the extent possible we were inclined to authorize low power service
without any 2nd- and 3rd-adjacent channel protection standards. We
stated our belief that a strong case could be made for not requiring
3rd-adjacent channel protection to or from any of the contemplated
classes of LPFM stations. We indicated that such an approach would
entail little risk of interference to existing radio service. We noted
that areas of potential interference to a full power station would be
very small and occur only in the immediate vicinity of the low power
transmission facility. We further indicated that such interference
would generally only occur if the low power station were located at, or
very near, the outer edge of the full power station's service contour
where the full power station's signal is the weakest. We noted that
3rd-adjacent channel protection was eliminated for certain
grandfathered and short-spaced full power stations in 1997. On balance,
we stated that creating opportunities for a new LPFM service should
outweigh any small risks of interference to and from LP1000 and LP100
stations.
74. With regard to 2nd-adjacent channel protection, we noted that
``grandfathered'' short-spaced FM facilities were permitted to modify
their facilities without regard to 2nd- and 3rd-adjacent channel
spacings during the period from 1964 to 1987, and from 1997 to the
present. We indicated that no interference complaints were received as
a result of those modifications and found that the small risk of
interference was outweighed by improved service. Similarly, we noted
that we have been willing in the past to accept small amounts of
potential 2nd- and 3rd-adjacent channel interference in the
noncommercial FM service where such interference is counterbalanced by
substantial service gains. We sought comment on the state of receiver
technology and the ability of receivers to operate satisfactorily in
the absence of 2nd-adjacent channel protection. We also sought comment
on the impact of eliminating 2nd-adjacent channel protection on the
possible conversion of existing analog radio services to a digital
mode, in particular with regard to in-band-on-channel (IBOC)
technology. In this regard, we noted that one IBOC proponent, suggested
that 2nd-adjacent channel signals from analog FM stations in the
existing radio environment would not pose an interference threat to its
digital IBOC signal.
75. Comments. Technical studies of FM receivers were filed in
response to the NPRM by Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association;
by National Association of Broadcasters; and by National Lawyers'
Guild, Committee on Democratic Communications. In addition, the
Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology conducted a receiver
study and placed it in the record of this proceeding. Supplementary
findings and critiques were filed with reply comments.
76. Decision. We find that the record in this proceeding, including
the technical data and other studies submitted, supports a conclusion
that any risk of interference from LPFM stations of 100 watts or less
is small and, on balance, is outweighed by the benefits of this new
service. We conclude that it is not necessary to apply 3rd-adjacent
channel protection requirements to or from such stations. We believe
that 100-watt or lower LPFM stations operating on 3rd-adjacent channels
will not result in significant new interference to the service of
existing FM stations. Nor do we believe such operations are likely to
have an adverse effect on digital IBOC signals.
77. With regard to 2nd-adjacent channel protection requirements, it
appears that the risk of interference from LPFM signals on 2nd-adjacent
channels may be somewhat higher. We find that this would also be true
with regard to LPFM stations at power levels higher than 100 watts and
antenna heights higher than 30 meters. Therefore, we will retain 2nd-
adjacent channel protection requirements.
5. Other Technical Standards and Provisions
78. Background. In the NPRM, we sought comment on which part 73
technical operating requirements for full-service stations should be
applied to LPFM stations. In general, most commenters stated that,
although some requirements must remain to ensure a quality service, the
LP100 and LP10 stations should be held to less stringent requirements
than full service stations. While we do not want to overly burden LPFM
operators, we nevertheless believe that the technical rules set forth
below should apply to the LPFM stations. By doing so, we will not only
facilitate technically sound LPFM operations and the use of available
equipment, but will permit LPFM stations to engage in services such as
those obtained through the multiplexing of FM subcarriers. There are
some requirements applicable to full-service stations which we believe
can be relaxed or not applied. Accordingly, we will apply certain rules
to LP10 stations that apply to existing stations that operate with ten
watts transmitter power output (TPO) or less. The following paragraphs
set forth the principal technical requirements and provisions for LPFM
stations. These technical matters were generally non-controversial to
parties who filed comments in this proceeding. Other technical
requirements for LPFM stations are given in the rules.
79. Power/Height restrictions. Several commenters expressed the
desire to operate facilities at heights in excess of those specified as
the maximum/minimum facilities for the class. This would enable
stations to use existing structures at sites where the localized
elevation is such that the 30 meter HAAT would be exceeded regardless
of the height of the structure. One commenter, believes we should
impose strict maximum height restrictions on LPFM stations since, due
to the nature of the Commission's F(50,10)
[[Page 7627]]
interference prediction curves, equivalent 1 mV/m (60 dBu) reference
contours do not always guarantee proportionally sized interfering
contours. We will allow LPFM stations to exceed the class-defined upper
height restrictions as long as there is an offsetting decrease in the
station's effective radiated power. For this purpose, we will authorize
equivalent height and power combinations to produce the 60 dBu contour
generated by the maximum and minimum permitted facilities for the LP100
and LP10 stations; e.g., the maximum LP100 facilities of 100 watts and
30 meters produce a 60 dBu contour at a distance of 5.6 km.
80. We recognize that computing a station's HAAT requires access to
terrain database and numerous calculations. Therefore, in order to
streamline the application process, the staff will utilize a computer
program to calculate the antenna HAAT based upon information provided
by the LPFM applicant (the coordinates of the proposed antenna, the
site elevation above mean sea level, and the antenna height above
ground level (AGL)). If the calculated HAAT is less than or equal to 30
meters, the LPFM station will be authorized to operate with any ERP
within the maximum and minimum limits for its class. If the HAAT is
calculated to exceed 30 meters, the permit will specify maximum and
minimum ERP values that would produce the reference 60 dBu contours.
81. Directional antennas. Under our current rules, full service FM
stations may specify directional antennas to avoid interference to
other stations. Such facilities are subject to several strict
installation and pattern requirements (see 47 CFR 73.316). Processing
these applications is staff intensive. Construction permits for
directional facilities generally contain numerous conditions. Since we
are relying on a minimum distance separation methodology--rather than a
contour-based approach--to provide interference protection, we see no
need for stations to employ directional antennas. Accordingly, to
simplify applicant requirements and facilitate application processing
and ensure that service can be implemented as expeditiously as
possible, we will not authorize directional antennas for LPFM stations.
82. Transmission standards. The NPRM asked whether different
transmission standards should be employed for an LPFM service; for
example, whether the bandwidth could be reduced from 200 kHz to some
smaller value as a means of reducing the potential interference from
LPFM stations. To ensure technically sound station operations, we have
decided to apply to LPFM several transmission standards presently in
use for commercial and noncommercial educational FM stations. In most
cases, these standards will be met through the use of type certified
equipment without need for further adjustment by the LPFM licensee.
LPFM stations will be required to adhere to the 200 kHz channel
bandwidth applicable to full service stations, as well as the out-of-
channel signal attenuation requirements in 47 CFR 73.317, the center
frequency drift limits in 47 CFR 73.1545(b), and the limits on
modulation in 47 CFR 73.1570(a) and (b). In addition, LPFM stations
may, at their option, engage in monophonic or stereophonic
broadcasting. LPFM stations may also transmit additional information
via inaudible subcarriers during those periods when the audible FM
signal is on the air.
83. Antenna polarization. We will permit LP10 and LP100 stations
throughout the FM band to use horizontally polarized, vertically
polarized, or circularly or elliptically polarized antennas, as desired
by the applicant. We note that vertical-only polarized antennas have
been used in the noncommercial educational FM service to protect
reception of TV Channel 6 for nearly 15 years now, without adverse
impact. This will afford LPFM stations a wider selection of antennas
for use at LPFM stations.
84. Protection of AM radio radiation patterns. LPFM applicants
should also be aware that antenna structure construction within 3.2 km
(2 miles) of a directional AM station or 0.8 km (0.5 miles) of a
nondirectional AM station will subject the LPFM station to the
requirements of 47 CFR 73.1692. This section requires the affected AM
station to make before and after measurements of its installation to
insure that the new antenna structure does not aversely affect the
signal pattern through reflections of the AM signal produced by the new
structure. The LPFM applicant is financially responsible for conducting
the measurements and any corrective measures that may need to be
undertaken. The measurements can be quite expensive to conduct, and
correction even more so. Therefore, we encourage LPFM applicants to
locate the antenna more than 3.2 km from any directional AM station, or
more than 0.8 km from any AM nondirectional station.
85. Tower Height/FAA Coordination Requirements. Any proposal before
the Commission that specifies an antenna supporting structure in excess
of 61 meters above ground level is subject to the Commission's
requirements for antenna structure registration requirements. Certain
lower structures located close to air facilities are also subject to
these requirements. All structures subject to registration requirements
must obtain an FAA Determination of No Air Hazard for the structure
before the tower may be registered. In a letter dated June 1, 1999, the
FAA expressed some concern regarding the impact LP1000 stations may
have upon nearby air facilities. No specific questions were raised
regarding the lower powered facilities. Since we are not authorizing an
LP1000 service at this time, we will continue determining compliance
with our tower registration requirements in the manner set forth.
86. Blanketing Interference. For one year after the commencement of
transmissions with new or modified facilities, all FM stations are
required to take remedial action to resolve blanketing interference
complaints occurring within the immediate vicinity of the antenna site.
A station's specific blanketing interference radius is defined by our
rules. The blanketing contour for an LP100 station would extend
approximately 125 meters from the transmitter site and a 10-watt LP10
blanketing contour would extend 39 meters. Thus, the blanketing area of
either type of station is very small. We conclude that LPFM stations
should be required to resolve blanketing interference complaints in the
same manner applicable to full power stations. Although the potential
for blanketing interference from LPFM stations may be quite limited,
affected parties are entitled to relief from such interference caused
by a new source of radiation, whether it is a full-power commercial
station or a new low power community broadcaster. Accordingly, we will
apply the requirements in Sec. 73.318 to all LPFM stations, in
accordance with established precedents.
87. Potential Television Channel 6 Interference. Presently,
noncommercial educational FM applicants are required to consider the
impact of their operations on reception of television Channel 6, which
operates on a frequency band (82 to 88 MHz) just below the FM band (88
to 108 MHz) in accordance with the provisions of 47 CFR 73.525.
Determining the affected interference area pursuant to this section
usually requires complex calculations and detailed contour studies.
Given the very limited potential for interference caused by LPFM
stations, in order to simplify processing and lessen the filing burden
on applicants, we will utilize a spacing
[[Page 7628]]
table to protect TV Channel 6 stations. The values given in the table
utilize the protection ratios of Sec. 73.525 and worst case facilities
for the TV Channel 6 and the LP10 and LP100 stations. On this basis, we
do not anticipate that interference will occur. However, we will
require LPFM applicants to correct any complaints of interference
caused to Channel 6 reception in accordance with our blanketing
interference requirements (as are Channel 6 complaints regarding full
service stations). In most cases, this will require the installation of
simple filters on affected television sets. LPFM applicants will not be
required to coordinate their proposals with any potentially affected
Channel 6 television station.
88. Radio Reading Services. Several radio reading services have
expressed concerns about interference from LPFM stations to their
service to persons who are blind or who have low vision. Programming
provided by radio reading services is transmitted on subcarrier
frequencies of a broadcast station, which are not audible on a standard
radio. As the subcarrier frequencies are transmitted within the 200 kHz
bandwidth of the broadcast station, they receive the same protection
from interference as does the main broadcast programming. Thus, insofar
as the transmitted subcarrier signal is concerned, there will be no
increase in interference. With respect to subcarrier receivers used by
the radio reading service audience, the Commission does not set
technical standards for radio receivers. Thus, we cannot consider
whether additional interference might affect SCA reception in the
vicinity of an LPFM station, or whether different receiver construction
could reduce possible interference. However, we note that the 20 km
buffer between LPFM stations and co-channel or 1st adjacent channel
full service FM stations adopted in this document should afford
additional protection to subcarrier reception than was proposed in the
NPRM.
89. Transmitter Certification. In the NPRM, we tentatively
concluded LPFM stations should utilize only transmitters deemed ``type
certified'' by the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology
(OET) to ensure the integrity of the FM radio spectrum. Type
certification would prevent the use of transmitters with excessive
bandwidth or modulation, spurious emissions, excessive power output, or
insufficient frequency stability, which could cause interference to
other existing stations. A large majority of commenters concurred with
this conclusion. A few licensed amateur radio operators felt that they
should be exempt from this requirement, asserting that many amateurs
were capable of creating suitable equipment. However, we remain
concerned about the significant potential for interference caused by
non-type certified transmitters, particularly given the interference-
protection standards we are adopting. Nor do we believe that type
certification of equipment by the manufacturer will add appreciably to
the cost of equipment for a low power broadcast radio station.
Accordingly, we will adopt the certification requirement as proposed in
the NPRM. We emphasize that the use of non-type certified transmitters
will not be tolerated. Use of non-type certified transmitters will
subject the licensee to enforcement action including, but not limited
to, fines.
90. Unattended Operation. We anticipate that many LPFM stations
will be run as ``attended operations,'' since the transmitter sites
will be located at the source of program origination. However, LPFM
stations may also be operated in ``unattended'' mode. During these
times, there may be no personnel at the studio or transmitter site to
monitor operation. LPFM stations that will operate unattended will be
required to advise the Commission by simple letter of the unattended
operation, and provide an address and telephone number where a
responsible party can be reached during such times. The responsible
party must be able at all times to turn off the transmitter within 3
hours of receiving notice from the FCC that the equipment is not
functioning properly. In addition, we encourage the use of monitoring
equipment that can automatically shut off the transmitter within 3
hours if a fault (such as operation at excessive power operation or
center frequency drift) occurs. Finally, during periods when the LPFM
station is not transmitting programming on its regular channel, the
transmitter must be turned off.
91. Station Logs. Station logs provide a mechanism for verifying
proper operation of a station, as they require the licensee to examine
the operation before making a log entry. Logging requirements for LPFM
stations will be minimal. The station log for LPFM will contain only
the following entries: (1) Daily observation of proper function of
tower obstruction lighting (if required by section 17.47 of the
Commission's Rules); (2) dates and a brief explanation regarding
station outages due to equipment malfunctioning, servicing or
replacement; (3) any operation not in accordance with the station
license; (4) receipt of weekly EAS (Emergency Alert System) test; (5)
name of person making the entry.
92. These minimal requirements will not impose any significant
burden on LPFM licensees. Except for any required daily tower lighting
checks, entries need only be made when necessary. Logs must be retained
for two years from the date of the last entry, and station logs must be
made available to FCC personnel upon request.
93. Environmental Requirements. As with any applicant for a
Commission license, an LPFM proponent will have to certify compliance
with the environmental requirements of section 1.1307 of our rules. In
order to facilitate the preparation and processing of LPFM
applications, we will simplify the environmental compliance worksheets
included in the current FCC Form 301 to account for the low operating
power of LPFM stations.
94. Radio Astronomy Installation Notifications. Low power FM
broadcast stations will be required to coordinate with and provide
protection to the radio quiet zones at Green, West Virginia and at
Boulder Colorado, as is required for full service FM stations by
Sec. 73.1030. In addition, low power FM applicants in Puerto Rico will
need to coordinate with Cornell University regarding the radio
coordination zone on that island. This requirement is necessary to
ensure that research work at these installations will not be disrupted.
Because of the low power and antenna height of LPFM stations, we
anticipate that this requirement will affect very few applicants.
F. Application Processing
1. Electronic Filing
95. Background. The Commission recently mandated the electronic
filing of broadcast applications after a transition period of six
months from the date that each form becomes available for filing
electronically. Likewise, we proposed in the NPRM to require that LPFM
applications be filed electronically. We stated that mandatory
electronic filing could speed the introduction of LPFM service by
enabling the staff to process more quickly and efficiently the large
number of LPFM applications that we expect to receive. In addition, we
indicated that electronic filing software could be designed to assist
applicants with technical issues related to their applications, such as
determining what frequencies are available based on current information
in the Commission's database. We requested comment as to whether
Internet access
[[Page 7629]]
is sufficiently universal to warrant mandatory electronic filing of
LPFM applications.
96. Comments. Commenters that addressed the matter generally
support the use of electronic filing, but are divided as to whether it
should be mandatory. Several commenters express concern that electronic
filing is untried and may delay the introduction of LPFM service.
Several commenters urge that, regardless of whether electronic filing
is required, LPFM filing procedures should be as simple and inexpensive
as possible.
97. Decision. We anticipate that electronic forms will be made
available via the Commission's World Wide Web site prior to the opening
of the first LPFM filing window. Based on our consideration of the
record, however, we will not adopt a mandatory electronic filing system
for LPFM application forms at this time. Rather, assuming availability
of the forms, we will make electronic filing permissive for the first
LPFM filing window, which we intend to open for LP100 stations shortly
after the effective date of this document. Whether electronic filing is
permissive for the second window that we anticipate opening for LP10
stations, as well as for any subsequent LPFM filing windows, will be
resolved at a later date and will depend on several factors, including
our experience with both electronic and paper filing during the first
LPFM window and the time that elapses between the first and second
windows.
98. We recognize that, as some commenters point out, there may be
disparities among potential LPFM applicants in terms of Internet access
and/or computer skills. We believe that making electronic filing
permissive at this time will accommodate applicants that might be
disadvantaged by mandatory electronic filing. We previously have
discussed the significant advantages of a mandatory electronic filing
system in terms of realizing savings and efficiencies. We do not
believe that electronic filing would necessarily constitute an undue
burden or expense for potential LPFM applicants, as the costs of
computer and modem equipment continue to fall, and Internet access
increasingly is becoming available at minimal cost commercially and at
public institutions such as libraries. In addition, the Commission has
made, and will continue to make, great efforts to create a simple,
user-friendly electronic filing system. However, at present we are
determined to be cautious with the first applications for a new service
filed by applicants whose resources and familiarity with Commission
processes may be very limited. We will reassess our electronic filing
decision after our experience during the first filing window. We can
better determine at that time whether the first filing window has
provided a reasonable opportunity for interested parties to understand
and arrange for Internet access and familiarize themselves with our Web
site and electronic filing system. We can then determine whether the
public interest benefits of mandatory electronic filing will outweigh
any difficulties encountered or inequities expected, and decide whether
electronic filing will remain voluntary or be mandated for use by all.
99. Although electronic filing will be permissive, we strongly
encourage applicants to take advantage of electronic filing, and expect
that many will do so. The forms will be accessible to anyone with a
computer and a modem, without the need to purchase any special computer
software. The Commission's software will make filing more certain for
applicants by automatically notifying them of critical errors or
omissions in their applications, and allowing them to correct the
applications prior to submission. This software also will provide
applicants with immediate verification that their applications have
been received by the Commission. In addition, it will allow applicants
to submit amendments, make corrections to their previously-filed
applications, and submit narrative, explanatory exhibits. Furthermore,
we intend to design additional software that will be available on the
Commission's Web site to assist interested parties in making a
preliminary determination as to which frequencies are available for
LPFM use, based on current information in the Commission's database.
Thus, LPFM applicants using the electronic filing system also will have
access to a form of automated technical assistance in preparing their
applications.
2. Window Filing Process
100. Background. We proposed in the NPRM to adopt a window filing
approach for LPFM applications, with short filing windows of a few days
each to ``lessen the occurrence of mutually exclusive applications and
speed service to the public.'' The Commission recently substituted a
uniform window filing procedure for the various application procedures
for new commercial broadcast stations, and for major changes to
existing stations. Under this procedure, the Commission announces by
public notice a ``window'' or specific time period during which
applications may be filed. When the window closes, the staff reviews
the applications filed to determine whether any request mutually
exclusive authorizations and, therefore, are subject to competitive
bidding. Non-mutually exclusive applications are processed in
accordance with our general procedures. Groups of mutually exclusive
applications are identified by public notice and proceed to auction.
The Commission also is considering substituting a window procedure for
the two-step, cut-off list procedures now in place for full-service NCE
broadcast applications.
101. In the NPRM, we also asked for comment as to whether a first
come-first served process might serve the public interest better than a
window process by more effectively avoiding mutual exclusivity among
LPFM applications. We speculated that electronic filing ``might give us
the capacity to ascertain the precise sequence in which applications
are submitted by different parties.'' Thus, applications conflicting
with ones filed ``even a moment earlier'' might be rejected as
unacceptable for filing, avoiding mutual exclusivity in many cases. We
noted a number of drawbacks to this approach, however, including the
possibility that applicants might lose filing rights based solely on
the quality of their Internet connections.
102. Comments. Many commenters support a window filing approach,
and offer various suggestions as to the appropriate duration of filing
windows. Some commenters favor a first come-first served filing system,
generally contending that it would be a better means of avoiding mutual
exclusivity than a window approach. Several commenters suggest hybrid
approaches combining elements of window and first come-first served
systems.
103. Decision. Based on our consideration of the record, we will
adopt a window filing process for LPFM applications. We previously
stated that a window process ``provides the staff with a mechanism to
control effectively the filing and processing of broadcast
applications.'' We believe that such a mechanism is important here
because of the large number of LPFM applications that we expect to
receive. In addition, the first-come first-served approach envisioned
in the NPRM, which would determine filing priority based on the exact
time that applications are filed, is feasible only if electronic filing
is required, which will not be the case, at least initially. Moreover,
we are concerned that such an approach, by placing a premium on filing
at the earliest possible moment, might unfairly disadvantage certain
applicants based solely on the quality of their Internet
[[Page 7630]]
connections. The filing of hundreds or thousands of applications at
once also might place unbearable strains on the LPFM electronic filing
system. A window filing process avoids these pitfalls, as applicants
will be able to file at any time over a period of several days without
losing filing rights.
104. Once this document becomes effective, the Mass Media Bureau,
pursuant to delegated authority, will promptly release a public notice
announcing a national filing window for LP100 applications. We
anticipate that this window will open in May. The notice will be issued
at least thirty days in advance of the opening of the filing window.
Full power broadcast applications filed on or after the date of release
of a public notice announcing the opening of an LPFM window will not
preclude the filing of conflicting LPFM applications filed during that
window. However, where the conflict ultimately is determined to relate
to service inside the city grade contours of the full power station,
the LPFM application will be dismissed. The window itself will be open
for a period of five business days. We believe that five days, combined
with thirty days' specific advance notice and the additional time
between the release of this document and the public notice announcing
the window, should give interested parties sufficient time to prepare
and file their LPFM applications, while minimizing the number of
mutually exclusive LPFM applications. We emphasize that applications
filed before or after the dates specified in the public notice will not
be accepted.
105. In accordance with our window filing procedure for commercial
broadcast applications, after the LPFM window closes, the staff
initially will screen applications for the purpose of identifying those
that are mutually exclusive and those that fail to protect existing
broadcast stations in accordance with the standards adopted herein.
Applications that fail to properly protect these existing stations will
be dismissed without the applicant being afforded an opportunity to
amend. This will increase the speed and efficiency with which LPFM
applications can be processed by the staff. Technically acceptable non-
mutually exclusive applications will be further reviewed for
acceptability and processed by the staff in accordance with the
Commission's general procedures. Groups of mutually exclusive
applications will be identified in a subsequent public notice, and will
be subject to the selection procedures set forth. After an application
is tentatively selected from a mutually exclusive group, it will be
reviewed for acceptability, and a public notice will be released
announcing the finding that the application has been tentatively
selected and is acceptable for filing. Petitions to deny the
application will be due within 30 days of the release of the public
notice of its acceptability for filing. Petitions and informal
objections will not be considered unless and until the application has
been tentatively selected for processing and found acceptable for
filing. A tentative selectee whose application is found unacceptable
for filing will be given a single opportunity to submit a curative
amendment, provided that the amendment is minor and the amended
application has the same number of points as originally claimed, or
more than the points claimed by the next highest applicant. Tentative
selectees whose applications remain unacceptable for filing after this
opportunity will be removed from their mutually exclusive groups, and
will not be provided with an additional opportunity to amend.
106. As stated, we are developing software to assist interested
parties in determining whether specific frequencies may be available at
specific locations for LPFM use. This software will not be able to
determine conclusively whether a particular frequency will be available
for an applicant, as frequency availability also will depend, among
other things, on whether competing applications are filed during the
LPFM filing window. Nevertheless, we anticipate that the software will
help interested parties focus on potentially-available facilities, and
will provide technical assistance for interested parties with limited
financial resources. We anticipate that this software will be ready for
use by the time we announce the first filing window for LPFM
applications. The Mass Media Bureau will issue a public notice with
information regarding how to access the software and the technical
assistance it can provide. Such information also will be posted on the
Commission's Web site.
3. Selection Among Mutually Exclusive Applications
107. Background. In the NPRM, we requested comment as to whether
the proposed LPFM service should be restricted to NCE applicants or
open to both commercial and NCE applicants. We tentatively concluded
that, pursuant to statutory requirements, mutually exclusive
applications for commercial LPFM facilities would be subject to
auction. We asked for comment on alternative methods for resolving
mutual exclusivity among NCE LPFM applicants. We specifically referred
commenters to our proceeding reexamining full-service NCE comparative
standards, where we sought comment on three possible methods for
selecting among mutually exclusive applicants: (1) Comparative
hearings; (2) a lottery process weighted in favor of certain applicants
based on statutory requirements and other factors; and (3) a system
assigning points to applicants based on various selection criteria.
108. Comments. Most commenters that address the matter oppose the
use of competitive bidding, arguing that it would undermine the
Commission's stated goals in establishing the LPFM service. Few
commenters support the use of comparative hearings to resolve mutually
exclusive NCE applications. There was support among commenters for the
use of a lottery process, although most of these commenters argued the
merits of lotteries over auctions, rather than over an alternative
selection method. A number of commenters also favored the use of a
point system. In addition, several commenters suggest that we impose
arbitration to resolve mutual exclusivity, and one advocates the use of
``conflict reduction methods'' such as allowing ``liberal channel and
coverage changes.'' Commenters also propose various selection factors
for use within a comparative selection process.
109. Decision. Based on our consideration of the record, we shall
adopt a point system for resolving mutual exclusivity among LPFM
applicants. The point system will include three selection criteria: (1)
Established community presence; (2) proposed operating hours; and (3)
local program origination. The system will employ voluntary time-
sharing as a tie-breaker, that is, tied applicants will have an
opportunity to aggregate points by submitting time-share proposals. As
a last resort, where a tie is not resolved through time-sharing or
settlement, we shall award successive equal license terms totaling
eight years (the normal license term), without renewal expectancy for
any of the licensees.
110. We conclude that the point system we are adopting is superior
to alternative selection methods. As discussed above, the LPFM service
will be reserved for noncommercial, educational service, and we are
precluded by statute from using auctions to award station licenses on
channels reserved for NCE use. Accordingly, we need not discuss an
auction-based selection mechanism. In our proceeding reexamining full-
service NCE comparative standards, we
[[Page 7631]]
tentatively rejected comparative hearings because they tend to be
lengthy, cumbersome, and resource-intensive, without substantial
offsetting benefits. These disadvantages make comparative hearings
particularly ill-suited for selecting LPFM applicants. Like comparative
hearings, mandatory arbitration and engineering solutions could impose
significant delays on the LPFM authorization process and impose
additional expenses on applicants. Moreover, although we will encourage
individual settlements as a means of resolving mutual exclusivity among
LPFM applicants, the Commission lacks the resources to administer a
system that would require arbitration or the imposition of engineering
solutions in every instance of mutual exclusivity. Finally, we conclude
that a lottery system is comparatively inferior to a point system as an
LPFM selection method. The primary benefits of a lottery system are the
speed and ease with which it may be applied. As discussed, however, a
point system offers like benefits. Moreover, there are unresolved legal
and policy issues surrounding the use of a lottery system that pose a
risk of delaying the introduction of LPFM service to the public. A
point system does not entail similar risks. A lottery process is also
inherently inferior to a point system in its ability to further the
Commission's policy goals due its random nature. This randomness may be
mitigated, but not eliminated, by weighting in favor of certain types
of applicants. For these reasons, in the case of LPFM service, we
reject all of these approaches in favor of a point system.
111. Point System. We believe that a point system is the best-
suited selection methodology for promoting the Commission's policy
goals for the LPFM service and speeding its introduction to the public.
The Commission has used a point system procedure with success in the
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS). Like lotteries, point
systems have the potential to be fast, inexpensive, and
administratively efficient. Unlike lotteries, however, point systems
make possible the selection of applicants based on objective criteria
designed to best advance the public interest in the particular service
at issue. Finally, the fact that LPFM licenses are non-transferable
eliminates a major potential disadvantage of any system based on
selection criteria; it prevents the integrity of the system from being
undermined by the rapid assignment or transfer of station licenses by
an entity that was awarded the license over other applicants on some
merit basis that is not necessarily found in the buyer.
112. Point System Operation--Selection Criteria. Our point system
will include three selection criteria for mutually exclusive
applicants: (1) Established community presence; (2) proposed operating
hours; and (3) local program origination. These criteria are directly
related to the advancement of the public interest that the Commission
has found warrants the introduction of this new service. To protect the
integrity of the selection process and ensure that its full benefits
may be realized, we have chosen clear-cut selection factors that are
objective in nature and do not require burdensome documentation.
113. Established Community Presence. For the reasons set forth,
first, applicants that have an established community presence of at
least two years' duration will be awarded one point. An applicant will
be deemed to have an established community presence where, for a period
of at least two years prior to application, the applicant is able to
certify that it has been physically headquartered, has had a campus, or
has had 75 percent of its board members residing within 10 miles of the
reference coordinates of the proposed transmitting antenna. This
criterion will favor organizations that have been operating in the
communities where they propose to construct an LPFM station and thus
have ``track records'' of community service and established
constituencies within their communities. We believe that such
applicants, because of their longstanding organizational ties to their
communities, are likely to be more attuned to, and have organizational
experience addressing, the needs and interests of their communities. In
this regard, a number of commenters suggest preferences based on prior
community service and/or community support. These suggested factors
could be subjective in nature, however, and could be burdensome to
demonstrate and verify. In addition, we believe that preferring
organizations that have been in existence and physically present in the
community for two years will help prevent maneuvering of the point
system by those who might otherwise establish multiple organizations to
file LPFM applications.
114. As we stated in our discussion of the community-based
eligibility requirement, we do not believe this preference for
established local entities contravenes the court's concerns in Bechtel.
In adopting such a comparative factor, we further note that the Bechtel
court was concerned that quantitative integration factors worked to the
virtual exclusion of other factors the court deemed potentially
relevant in determining the relative quality of service that would be
provided by an applicant. For LPFM, we are including other selection
factors and giving them equivalent weight in the selection process.
Moreover, while the two-year presence factor has a quantitative aspect,
it is objectively verifiable and does not depend on promises of future
performance, as the integration preference did.
115. Applicants claiming points for established community presence
will be required to certify in their applications that they meet the
above-stated conditions. The application form will identify appropriate
documentation that must be made available for the point claimed.
Applicants will be required to submit this information at the time of
filing and it will be available in our public reference room. As with
other broadcast applications, the Commission will rely on
certifications but will use random audits to verify the accuracy of the
certifications. This information also will enable applicants to verify
that competing applicants qualify for the points they claim.
116. Proposed Operating Hours. Second, applicants that pledge to
operate at least 12 hours per day will be assigned one point. As set
forth below, the minimum operating hours for LPFM stations will be five
hours per day. This criterion does not impose any additional
requirement, but awards points to applicants that pledge longer hours
of operation. Applicants that propose more intensive use of the
broadcast frequencies they seek will advance the Commission's general
policy objective of ensuring efficient spectrum use and providing more
programming to serve their communities.
117. Local Program Origination. Finally, applicants that pledge to
originate locally at least eight hours of programming per day will be
assigned one point. For purposes of this criterion, local origination
will be defined as the production of programming within 10 miles of the
reference coordinates of the proposed transmitting antenna. This
criterion derives from the service requirements for full-service
broadcast stations, which are required to maintain the capacity to
originate programming from their main studios. LPFM licensees will not
be subject to main studio requirements, and will have discretion to
determine the origination point of their programming. As a comparative
selection factor, local program origination can advance the
Commission's policy goal of addressing unmet needs for community-
oriented
[[Page 7632]]
radio broadcasting. In this regard, we believe that an applicant's
intent to provide locally-originated programming is a reasonable gauge
of whether the LPFM station will function as an outlet for community
self-expression.
118. With regard to both the second and the third selection
criteria, applicants will be required to certify in their applications
that they will meet the qualifying conditions for the points claimed.
We will require successful applicants to adhere to their operating
hours and local program origination pledges. As these criteria are
prospective in nature, they will not be subject to verification at the
application stage. The Commission will use random audits to verify the
accuracy of the certifications, and will consider written complaints
regarding actual performance. Consistent with our current practice, the
staff may issue letters of inquiry requiring submission of
documentation in connection with such audits. Where analysis of the
requested information indicates that licensees have not fulfilled their
pledges, appropriate action will be taken, including the possibility of
monetary forfeitures and revocation proceedings.
119. In choosing selection criteria, we have carefully considered
the comments we received advocating various selection factors, as well
as the point system elements under consideration in our proceeding
reexamining full-service NCE comparative standards. We believe that the
factors we have chosen best balance our interest in furthering the
specific localized objectives of the LPFM service and avoiding
cumbersome, subjective and manipulable criteria. We note that a number
of commenters advocate preferences for entities controlled by
minorities. We shall defer consideration of this matter. The Commission
is conducting fact-finding studies as to whether such preferences may
be justified consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand
Constructors v. Pena. Depending on the outcome of these studies, we
will consider in the future whether to adopt minority control as a
point system factor.
120. 1st Tiebreaker--Voluntary Time-Sharing. In the event that the
point system results in a tie among two or more mutually exclusive
applicants, applicants will have the opportunity, within 30 days of the
release of a public notice announcing the tie, to submit amendments to
their applications incorporating voluntary time-share proposals. Each
time-share proponent must propose to operate at least 10 hours per
week. Time-share proposals may function as tie-breakers in two
different ways. First, all of the tied applicants in a mutually
exclusive group may propose a time-share proposal, in which case the
staff will review and process all of the tied applications. Second,
some of the tied applicants in a mutually exclusive group may submit a
time-share proposal, in which case the time-sharers' points will be
aggregated. Time-sharers may aggregate points under each of the three
selection criteria. The purpose of allowing point aggregation is to
encourage time-share arrangements as a means of resolving mutual
exclusivity among tied LPFM applicants. In addition, we believe that
time-sharing arrangements will serve the public interest by increasing
participation by a variety of local community organizations in the
operation of LPFM stations.
121. Our decision to incorporate voluntary time-sharing into the
point system as a tie-breaker is based on our judgment that voluntary
time-share arrangements have the potential to advance the Commission's
goals for the new service. We noted in our proceeding reexamining full-
service NCE comparative standards that ``[a] number of commenters
dislike mandatory share-time arrangements, finding them confusing to
audiences, and potentially inefficient for licensees.'' On a voluntary
basis, however, time-sharing has significant potential advantages for
LPFM applicants. From a practical standpoint, the localized nature of
the LPFM service is likely to enhance applicants' ability to time-
share. In many cases, the small scale of LPFM operations also may make
time-sharing more efficient for LPFM licensees. Furthermore, by
increasing the number of new broadcast voices, time-sharing can advance
our interest in promoting additional diversity in radio voices and
program services through the LPFM service.
122. Final Tiebreaker--Successive License Terms. As a last resort,
in cases where a tie is not resolved through settlement or time-
sharing, the staff will review tied applications for acceptability.
Applicants whose applications are grantable will be eligible for equal,
successive license terms of no less than one year each, spanning a
total of eight years. Successive license terms will not be granted for
groups of more than eight tied, grantable applications. In the event of
such a situation, the staff will dismiss all but the applications of
the eight entities with the longest established community presences, as
demonstrated by the documentation submitted with their applications. If
this does not limit the group of applications to eight, the entire
group will be deemed ungrantable and will be dismissed if, after a
final opportunity to submit settlement proposals within 30 days of the
release of a public notice, the situation is not resolved. Where
successive license terms are granted, there will be no renewal
expectancy for any of the licensees. If for some reason a successive
term licensee becomes unable to operate the station during its portion
of the license term, that licensee's time will be divided equally among
the remaining licensees for that station. If none of the tied,
grantable applications proposes same-site facilities, then all will be
granted at the same time. The sequence of the applicants' license terms
will be determined by the sequence in which they file their
applications for licenses to cover their construction permits, based on
the day of filing. However, if any of the tied, grantable construction
permit applications propose same-site facilities, the applicants
proposing such facilities will be required, within an additional 30
days, to submit a settlement agreement proposing the sequence of the
license terms for such applicants. If they fail to do so, they will be
removed from the mutually exclusive group and the remaining
applications will be granted.
123. Settlements. Applicants may propose a full settlement at any
time during the selection process after the release of the public
notice announcing the mutually exclusive group. Such settlements must
be universal--that is, they must involve all of the mutually exclusive
applicants within a group--and must comply with the Commission's
general rules for settlements, including the requirement that the
settling parties certify that they have not received consideration for
the dismissal of their applications in excess of their legitimate and
prudent expenses. Settlements may incorporate voluntary time-share
proposals.
124. Delegated Authority. As we explained in our proceeding
reexamining full-service NCE comparative standards, the Commission
currently may delegate authority for applying point systems only to
administrative law judges or to individual Commissioners. This
statutory restriction is based on the fact that point systems
technically are considered a type of simplified hearing. We believe
that the staff would be able to administer the LPFM point system in a
more streamlined manner than administrative law judges or individual
[[Page 7633]]
Commissioners. Therefore, we will seek authority from Congress, through
specific legislation, to delegate responsibility to the staff for
applying the point system. Until we receive such authority, the staff
will refer point system proceedings to the Commission for disposition.
125. Minor Modification of Authorized LPFM Stations. We will adopt
one exception to the window filing process to permit the filing at any
time of certain ``minor change'' applications. For LP100 stations, a
minor change may involve a transmitter site relocation of less than two
kilometers. For LP10 stations, a minor change may involve a transmitter
site relocation of less than one kilometer. Minor change applications
may also propose a change to an adjacent or IF frequency or, upon a
technical showing of reduced predicted interference, to any other
frequency. Similarly, we will consider as minor any change in frequency
necessary to resolve actual interference. All other changes will be
classified as ``major'' and subject to our window filing procedures.
Minor change applications also must satisfy the technical and legal
requirements applicable to LPFM stations generally.
4. License Terms and Renewals
126. Background. In the NPRM, we asked how often and how closely we
should actively monitor, within the parameters of our statutory
responsibility, the performance of LP100 stations in connection with
the license renewal process. We asked whether a pro forma process would
satisfy any statutory requirement, in the absence of specific public
complaint. We also asked for comment on whether stations other than
LP1000 stations should be authorized for finite, nonrenewable periods,
such as five or eight years, to create additional opportunities for new
entrants in the LPFM service. We explained that making broadcast
outlets available to more speakers is a fundamental premise of this
rulemaking effort, and that we did not expect that such a limitation
would discourage the very modest investment required to build such a
station. We sought comment on whether the disruption of service to the
public that non-renewability would involve outweighed the potential
benefits of making this service available to more speakers on a
consecutive basis.
127. Comments. Commenters propose a variety of LPFM license terms
and the majority argue that LPFM licenses should be renewable.
Commenters suggest license terms of one, two, four, five, and seven
years. Other commenters contend that LPFM stations should have the same
eight year license periods granted to full power stations.
128. Most commenters argue that all LPFM licenses should be
renewable. Commenters also contend that LPFM licensees should have the
same renewal expectancy as existing broadcasters.
129. Decision. We will provide LP100 and LP10 licensees with the
same license terms and renewal expectancy as full-power FM radio
stations. Accordingly, licenses will be renewed for a term not to
exceed eight years from the date of expiration of the preceding license
and LPFM licenses will be renewed, without consideration of competing
applicants, if they have met the renewal standard of section 309(k)(1)
of the Act. Upon considering the comments filed in this proceeding, we
find that granting renewable licenses is consistent with the goals we
are seeking to advance with this service. Moreover, we believe that
nonrenewable licenses would discourage licensees from developing
facilities and audiences to the fullest extent possible. We therefore
will grant, with one exception described in paragraph 132 below,
renewable licenses for LPFM stations.
130. Section 73.1020(a) divides the country into 18 different
regions containing one or more states for purposes of establishing
synchronized schedules for radio and television licenses. Radio station
licenses expired under this rule in intervals between October 1, 1995,
and August 1, 1998, and those licenses, renewed for eight years, will
expire again between September 30, 2003, and July 31, 2006. We
consistently grant initial terms for all new broadcast authorizations
to fit into this synchronized schedule, although it means initial terms
are usually for a period of less than eight years.
131. We adopt these synchronized schedules for LPFM licenses
because maintaining the predictability, administrative efficiencies,
public awareness, and fairness inherent in the existing synchronized
schedule of license cycles serves the public interest. Accordingly, an
initial LPFM license granted within any renewal period set forth in
Sec. 73.1020 of our rules will be assigned the expiration date assigned
to those full-power FM stations licensed in the same region during the
same licensing cycle. Because of the cyclical nature of this process,
granting initial full eight-year license terms in the middle of a
licensing cycle could undermine the synchronization of the whole
process. Like full-power licenses, LPFM licenses may then be renewed
for a term not to exceed eight years from the expiration date of the
preceding license. This approach will reduce the regulatory burden on
LPFM broadcasters by affording them the same maximum license terms now
granted other broadcasters, and will correspondingly reduce the
associated burdens on the Commission. We see no compelling reason to
vary from the term set by Congress for full-power stations. We further
note that, while we will authorize eight-year license terms, the public
may scrutinize station performance and file complaints with the
Commission at any time during the term of an LPFM license.
132. The one exception to this rule pertains to situations where we
grant successive license terms under the final tiebreaker procedures.
These tiebreaker licenses will not be based on the synchronized
licensing cycle of Sec. 73.1020. If applicants were granted last resort
tiebreaker licenses conformed to the synchronized schedule, each
licensee, depending on where in the renewal cycle we were, might
receive authorizations to operate for a very short period of time,
e.g., a few months, with no opportunity to renew their license.
133. We will also extend the renewal expectancy provisions of
section 309(k)(1) of the Act to LPFM licensees. Providing incumbents
with the likelihood of renewal encourages licensees to make investments
to ensure quality service. Upon receiving an application for renewal of
an LPFM license, we will determine whether the licensee has served the
public interest, convenience, and necessity; whether there have been
any serious violations of the Act or Commission rules; and whether
there have been any serious violations that, taken together, would
constitute a pattern of abuse. Only if incumbent LPFM licensees fail to
meet these requirements will other applicants be eligible to apply for
the same license. As noted, an exception is where the license is held
for successive terms as a result of the final tiebreaker procedure.
Such licenses will be nonrenewable.
5. Transferability
134. Background. In the NPRM, we noted that some commenters urged
us to restrict the sale of LPFM stations to deter the filing of
speculative applications and trafficking in construction permits. We
stated our belief that, in light of the limits we proposed on ownership
of LPFM stations, we did not believe that it was necessary to restrict
the sale of any class of LPFM station. We invited commenters to address
this issue, including whether restrictions on sales would be advisable
if the Commission
[[Page 7634]]
adopts ownership rules other than those proposed in the NPRM.
135. Comments. While comments on the transferability of LPFM
stations were mixed, the majority of commenters that addressed this
issue supported either prohibiting transfers altogether or severely
restricting them. A few commenters were in favor of permitting
transferability of LPFM stations, arguing generally that owners who
have invested in such stations should be able to realize the fair
market value of such stations.
136. Decision. After careful review of the comments, we have
decided to prohibit the transfer of construction permits and licenses
for LPFM stations. Contrary to our initial view stated in the NPRM, we
are persuaded that a prohibition on transfers will best promote the
Commission's interest in ensuring that spectrum is used for low power
operations as soon as possible, without the delay associated with
license speculation. We are also persuaded that the goals of this new
service, to foster opportunities for new radio broadcast ownership and
to promote additional diversity in radio voices and program services,
will best be met if unused permits and licenses are returned to the
Commission. Given the modest facilities and noncommercial nature of
LPFM stations, we do not believe non-transferability will discourage
LPFM licensees from serving their listeners.
G. Programming and Service Rules
1. Public Interest Requirements
137. Background. In the NPRM, we proposed to require LP1000
licensees to adhere to the same part 73 requirements regarding public
interest programming as apply to full-power FM licensees. We noted that
this meant that each LP1000 licensee would be required to air
programming serving the needs and interests of its community, using its
discretion as to how to meet that obligation. We also listed several
other rules, such as those regarding the broadcasting of taped, filmed,
or recorded material, sponsorship identification, personal attacks, and
periodic call sign announcements and sought comment on whether they
should apply to LPFM stations. We stated a disinclination, however, to
impose public interest programming requirements on LP100 and LP10
licensees, given the size of operations we envisioned and the
simplicity we were striving to achieve in this service. We expected
that the very nature of LP100 and LP10 would ensure that they served
the needs and interests of their communities.
138. Comments. We received few comments on public interest
requirements. Some commenters contend that we must apply all of the
same basic public interest requirements to LPFM licensees that are
applied to full-power broadcasters. Other commenters oppose any
requirements for LP100 and LP10 stations, arguing that it would place
an unreasonable burden on those stations.
139. Decision. Every broadcast licensee is required to operate its
station in the public interest. Given the nature of the LPFM service,
however, we conclude that certain obligations imposed on full-power
radio licensees would be unnecessary if applied to LPFM licensees. We
expect that the local nature of this service, coupled with the
eligibility and selection criteria we are adopting, will ensure that
LPFM licensees will meet the needs and interests of their communities.
Thus, for example, consistent with our rules for low power television,
we will not adopt a rule requiring LPFM licensees to provide
programming responsive to community issues or to maintain a list of
issues addressed or specific programs aired.
140. We will, however, apply certain specific rules applicable to
all broadcasters to LPFM licensees. First, LPFM operators must, of
course, comply with those rules required by statute. Thus, for example,
like all broadcasters, LPFM licensees will be expressly prohibited from
airing programming that is obscene, and restricted from airing
programming that is ``indecent'' during certain times of the day. They
must also comply with our sponsorship identification and political
programming rules. In addition, we will require LPFM licensees to
comply with our rules regarding taped, filmed, or recorded material,
personal attacks, and periodic call sign announcements. Violation of
any of these rules by an LPFM licensee would be as detrimental to its
audience as violation by a full-power broadcaster, and widespread
disregard for these rules could outweigh the benefits to the public
this service is intended to bring.
2. Locally Originated Programming
141. Background. In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether to
impose a minimum local origination programming requirement on any of
the three proposed classes of LPFM service. We opined that listeners
benefit from local programming, because it often reflects needs,
interests, circumstances, or perspectives that may be unique to that
community. We also noted that many of LPFM's initial supporters argued
that the Commission's rules should actively promote locally oriented
programming by, for instance, limiting the amount of network
programming a station could air. We expressed an expectation, however,
that a significant amount of programming for LPFM stations would be
locally produced as a matter of course. We also asserted that
programming does not have to be locally produced to have interest or
value to the listeners in a particular locale. Accordingly, we stated
that we were inclined to give LP100 and LP10 licensees the same
discretion as full-power licensees to determine what mix of local and
non-local programming would best serve the community. To promote new
broadcast voices, however, we proposed that an LPFM station not be
permitted to operate as a translator, retransmitting the programming of
a full-power station.
142. Comments. Many commenters favor the adoption of a locally
originated programming obligation. A number of commenters oppose any
specific obligations on LPFM licensees regarding locally originated
programming. Commenters generally agree that LFPM stations should not
be used as translators for retransmitting full-power station
programming.
143. Decision. We continue to believe that LPFM licensees'
provision of a significant amount of locally originated programming
will enhance the success of this service. This is why we are
encouraging the provision of locally originated programming by means of
a licensing preference. However, we also believe that in certain cases,
programming need not be locally originated to be responsive to local
needs. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to impose specific
requirements for locally originated programming on LPFM licensees. We
believe that the nature of the service, combined with the eligibility
criteria and preferences we are adopting, will ensure that LPFM
licensees provide locally originated programming or programming that is
otherwise responsive to local needs.
144. We do, however, agree with commenters that LPFM stations
should not be used for retransmitting, either terrestrially or via
satellite, the programming of full-power stations. This would
significantly undercut a fundamental basis for the establishment of
this service. This prohibition against LPFM stations operating as
translators also promotes locally originated programming by eliminating
a
[[Page 7635]]
significant avenue for obtaining non-locally originated programming.
3. Political Programming Rules
145. Background. In the NPRM, we sought comment on the
applicability of political programming rules to each class of low power
radio service that we might adopt. We explained that sections 312(a)(7)
and 315 of the Communications Act, as amended, underlie some of these
rules, and each is explicitly applicable to ``broadcast stations.''
Thus, we lack the discretion not to apply these provisions to any class
of LPFM station, regardless of size. We specifically sought comment on
how each of these political broadcasting rules should be applied to
low-power stations, taking into consideration our statutory mandate.
146. Comments. The few comments that we received on this issue
support our tentative conclusion to adopt political programming rules
for LPFM stations.
147. Decision. We conclude that we are required by statute to apply
the same political programming rules to low-power stations that we
apply to full-power stations. There is ample precedent for how the
political programming rules apply to noncommercial stations and thus
how the rules will apply to LPFM. For example, section 312(a)(7) of the
Communications Act, as amended, requires broadcasters to allow legally
qualified candidates for federal office reasonable access to their
facilities, but because LPFM stations are noncommercial educational
facilities, they must provide such access on a free basis. Section
315(a) of the Communications Act, as amended, requiring equal
opportunities for candidates, will also apply.
148. In conformance with the statutory mandate, we will apply the
reasonable access and equal opportunities provisions of the statute and
the Commission's rules, as well as related policies delineated in prior
Commission orders, to LPFM licensees. With respect to reasonable
access, the Commission's policy has generally been to defer to the
reasonable, good faith judgment of licensees as to what constitutes
``reasonable access'' under all the circumstances present in a
particular case. Noncommercial educational stations, including LPFM
stations, however, may not support or oppose any candidate for
political office. LPFM licensees cannot charge legally qualified
candidates for the time used on their stations and no LPFM licensee may
discriminate among candidates ``in practices, regulations, facilities,
or services'' or ``make or give any preference to any candidate for
public office.'' In addition, we will require LPFM licensees to
maintain a political file, if needed, to record the requisite
particulars. The political file shall be maintained for public
inspection at an accessible place in the station's community. Finally,
we will resolve any issues involving LPFM licensees on a case-by-case
basis to determine whether the licensee is acting within the spirit of
the statute and Commission rules and policies on political programming.
4. Station Identification
149. Background. In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether to adopt
a call sign system that would identify a low power radio station as
such. We noted in the NPRM that a nonstandard (five letter) identifying
call sign system was used for the first several years of licensing low
power television (LPTV) stations, but that the Commission later allowed
LPTV stations to adopt call signs that were like those of full power
stations, but were appended with the suffix ``-LP.''
150. Comments. Commenters are divided over whether it would be in
the public interest to employ special call signs that would help
identify LPFM stations as low power. Some commenters argue that the use
of call signs would help to identify legitimate from illegal stations,
or help with the identification of malfunctioning or interfering
stations. Other commenters feel that a new system of call signs for
LPFM would be confusing to the public, with little or no compensating
public benefit, and suggest that ordinary FM call signs be issued to
new LPFM stations. Some commenters also argue that the use of call
signs for low power broadcasters would not be burdensome to these
broadcasters.
151. Decision. The question raised by the NPRM was not whether to
have call signs for LPFM stations, as apparently misunderstood by some
commenters, but whether to include a special designation in the call
signs identifying LPFM stations as low power stations. It is imperative
for a variety of reasons, including enforcement, convenience to the
public, and conformance with international agreements, that all
broadcasters, including low power broadcasters, use unique identifiers
on the air. We also conclude that it will be extremely beneficial for
LPFM operators to build an ``identity'' and do so in a radio-familiar
manner. We were guided on this issue by our experience with low power
television. In that service, we require stations' call signs to
indicate that they are low power stations, by appending the suffix ``-
LP'' to their four-letter call signs. We thus will require low power
stations to positively identify themselves. To avoid confusion for the
public and to inform the public of the reasonable expectations they may
have for service, the suffix ``-LP'' will be appended to LPFM station
call signs (e.g., ``WXYZ-LP''). Such identification will inform the
public that a station is a low power station. An LPFM four-letter call
sign cannot exactly duplicate the call sign of any other broadcast
station and cannot contain the same first four letters as another
station's call sign without that station's written consent. The
Commission's current call sign system will be modified to accommodate
low power stations in the manner four letter call signs are provided to
low power TV stations.
5. Operating Hours
152. Background. In the NPRM, we said we were not inclined to adopt
minimum operating hours for LP100 or LP10 stations. However, we
expressed our concern that spectrum might be underutilized if low power
stations were licensed but unused or underused, and asked for comments
on this issue.
153. Comments. For LP100 and LP10 services, commenters either argue
for: (1) low or no minimum operating hours, because of the cost burden
involved in requiring extended hours of operations, or (2) a time
sharing arrangement among local broadcasters. This latter group of
commenters argue that time sharing arrangements would reduce the part-
time warehousing of spectrum that would occur by a single non full-time
licensee, and would permit the entry of additional new voices into the
local radio market.
154. Decision. In order to ensure an effective utilization of
channels, we will impose the same minimum operating hour requirements
on LP100 and LP10 FM stations that we currently apply to full-power
noncommercial educational FM stations. Under our rules, ``[a]ll
noncommercial educational FM stations are required to operate at least
36 hours per week, consisting of at least 5 hours of operation per day
on at least 6 days of the week; however, stations licensed to
educational institutions are not required to operate on Saturday or
Sunday * * *'' These requirements are not extensive and should not
impose an inordinate burden on LPFM licensees. In cases where
individual parties are interested in applying for LP100 and LP10
stations but do not have sufficient programming to meet the minimum
operating hour requirements, we encourage those parties to find other
[[Page 7636]]
applicants with whom they could share the license. To accommodate those
situations in which the demand for airtime does not exceed the spectrum
availability, however, we will not automatically delete a station that
is operating at less than the minimum hours. When another applicant
comes forward that wants to utilize the underused channel, that
applicant can notify the Commission of the incumbent's failure to meet
minimum hours and demand that the incumbent return its license or agree
to a time-sharing arrangement that will accommodate both parties.
6. Main Studio Rule, Public File Rule and Ownership Reporting
Requirements
155. Background. In the NPRM, we invited comment on whether LPFM
stations of each class should be subject to the variety of other rules
in part 73 with which full power stations must comply, including, for
example, the main studio rule (47 CFR 73.1125(a)), public file rule (47
CFR 73.3526 and 73.3527), and the periodic ownership reporting
requirements (47 CFR 73.3615). Given the purposes and power levels of
LP1000 stations, we tentatively concluded that LP1000 licensees should
generally meet the part 73 rules applicable to full power FM stations.
However, the NPRM sought comment on whether sufficient useful purpose
would be served in applying each rule to these licensees. We were
disinclined to apply these service rules to LP10 stations, and sought
comment with regard to the rules appropriate for LP100 stations.
156. We also proposed to treat low power radio stations like full
power stations for the purposes of our environmental rules and
responsibilities under the National Environmental Protection Act. With
respect to protection against exposure to radio frequency radiation, we
noted that LP1000 and LP100 stations would operate at the power levels
of some Class A FM stations and thus the same safety and environmental
concerns would seem to apply. We therefore proposed to apply to these
stations the maximum permissible exposure limits and related regulatory
provisions that apply to FM radio stations. We invited comment on this
matter, and specifically on whether and how we should treat LP100
stations differently from LP1000 stations and, if so, why. We also
sought comment on how our environmental rules should apply to LP10
stations, if this low power radio class were adopted.
157. Comments. Comments were divided on this issue. Most
broadcasters who commented on this issue agree that LPFM stations
should generally follow existing regulations for full-power stations,
but some note that they should only have minimal day-to-day regulatory
requirements because of the difficulty of survival if such stations had
to follow the exact rules that full-power stations are required to
follow. Many other commenters state that the Commission should not
require LPFM stations to comply with a main studio, public file or
ownership reporting requirement, because of the burdens they would
impose.
158. Decision. We conclude that we should not impose the main
studio, public file, or ownership reporting requirements on LPFM
stations. We believe these requirements would place an undue burden on
such small noncommercial educational stations. In addition, we believe
that the nature of this service will ensure that LPFM stations are
responsive to their communities. This approach is consistent with our
treatment of low power television stations.
159. As to equal employment opportunity (EEO) rules, we conclude
that all LPFM licensees must comply with the Commission's long-standing
prohibition against employment discrimination. We believe that a
finding that any broadcaster has engaged in employment discrimination
raises a serious question as to its character qualifications to be a
Commission licensee. In addition to the prohibition against
discrimination, the broadcast EEO Rule also includes EEO program
requirements. These requirements are not currently in force. In any
event, we did not enforce compliance with the EEO program requirements
by broadcast stations with fewer than five full-time employees. Because
we anticipate that the vast majority of this class of licensees will
employ very few (if any) full-time, paid employees, we do not intend to
require LPFM licensees to comply with any EEO program requirements we
adopt in our pending rulemaking proceeding.
7. Construction Permits
160. Background. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed an 18-month
construction period for LP100 stations and a twelve-month limit for
LP10 stations. The shorter construction time limits for LP100 and LP10
stations (relative to the three-year construction period that is
allowed to full-power FM stations) were meant to reflect the simpler
construction requirements for these facilities. The 18- and 12-month
periods also assumed that difficulties with obtaining the requisite
construction permits would be minimal.
161. Comments. Many commenters state that the proposed construction
periods for LP100 and LP10 stations are reasonable, given the
relatively smaller facilities and simpler construction involved with
these stations. Other commenters argue for even shorter construction
periods for LP100 and micro-radio services. Some commenters thought
that imposing strict construction time limits would help to prevent
spectrum hoarding and help encourage the rapid deployment of the
spectrum resources.
162. Decision. We will adopt an 18-month construction period for
both LP10 and LP100 services, and it will be strictly enforced. While
we believe that most permittees will be able to and will have ample
incentive to construct their low power stations in far less than 18
months, given the relative technical simplicity of LP100 and LP10
stations, we do not wish to burden applicants who may encounter
unforeseen difficulties with a shorter construction period. We
recognize that while the facilities themselves will be relatively easy
to construct, zoning and permitting processes may, in some cases, delay
construction. However, we expect that applicants will have well-
considered proposals in this regard and we do not intend to grant
extensions to the construction permits. Therefore, to avoid the
complications and delays of extension rulings, as well as to encourage
well-planned and executed proposals, we have allowed what we consider
to be more than ample time for permittees to complete construction and
begin operation, and we expect to see many stations in operation long
before the allowed 18 months.
8. Emergency Alert System
163. Background. In the NPRM, we proposed to treat LP1000
facilities like full-power FM stations for the purposes of the
Emergency Alert System (EAS). We explained that, in this way, we would
expect to avoid having significant numbers of people deprived of this
critical information resource. By contrast, because of their extremely
small coverage areas and correspondingly sized audiences, as well as
their limited resources, we proposed that LP10 stations, if authorized,
not be required to participate in the EAS. We sought comment on these
proposals and also on how LP100 stations, with their intermediate size
and audience reach, should fit into the EAS structure.
164. Comments. Some commenters argue that compliance should not be
[[Page 7637]]
required for LP100 or LP10 stations because small operations and
coverage areas make compliance unnecessary and too expensive; stations
other than LP100 and LP10 stations can take on the role of alerting the
community to emergencies; the short range and secondary status of LP100
stations make them unsuitable for emergency message propagation; and
removing LP100 stations from the air during national emergencies would
help prevent interference during such crisis times. Other commenters
suggest that EAS be required only under certain circumstances. A few
commenters provide suggestions on how to overcome the expense involved
in EAS participation. Other commenters stress the importance of
participation in EAS by all broadcast stations.
165. Decision. We conclude that LPFM stations should be required to
participate in the EAS structure, but in a modified way. Our
requirements will balance the cost of compliance, the ability of
stations to meet that cost, and the needs of the listening public to be
alerted in emergency situations. LPFM licensees will be able to satisfy
our EAS requirements if they install and operate Commission-certified
decoding equipment, which will alert station personnel to emergency
alerts. Once that decoding equipment is installed, station personnel
must pass any national emergency audio message on to listeners as
prescribed in our rules. As is the case for full service broadcasters,
LPFM participation at the state and local levels will be on a voluntary
basis.
166. The EAS is composed of several entities, including FM
broadcast stations, LPTV stations, and cable systems operating on an
organized basis at the national, state, and local levels. The EAS alert
is designed to make viewers and listeners aware of emergencies that may
affect them so that they may take appropriate protective action or seek
additional information. Though the arguments of financial hardship for
LPFM licensees to implement the EAS are well taken, alert messages are
potentially important to all listeners and viewers, and commenters do
not persuade us that the LPFM stations should, as a class, be exempted
from this important public safety function. We will, however, minimize
the cost of effective participation for LPFM licensees. Accordingly, we
amend Sec. 11.11(a) to include LPFM stations in the list of the EAS
entities. We also amend the Broadcast Station Timetable of
Sec. 11.11(a) to set out the requirements for LPFM.
167. While we will require EAS participation, we will exempt LPFM
stations from purchasing some of the EAS equipment required for other
participants under our rules. In general, EAS equipment must be able to
perform the functions described in all of our rules regulating EAS.
However, we relaxed some of these requirements for Class D
noncommercial educational FM and LPTV stations. Because LPFM stations
will also provide service to small audiences, we exempt LPFM stations
from the requirement to install and operate encoders. We believe that
the cost to LPFM licensees of installing and operating both encoding
and decoding equipment outweighs the benefits that these small stations
could provide to the public.
168. While we are not requiring LPFM stations to install encoding
equipment, all LPFM stations are required to use decoding equipment
that notifies the station in case of any emergency. We recognize that
there will be costs associated with EAS decoders, but believe the costs
are justified. Current Commission-certified integrated encoder/decoder
equipment costs $1,500 or more depending on the options a station wants
to install. We note that today's manufacturers only produce certified
encoders and decoders as integrated units, as that is the only demand
that exists. Noncertified decoding equipment, however, is currently
available and is advertised in some places for as little as $650. Thus,
it appears that Commission-certified decoding equipment should be
available for well under $1000 and should be able to reach the market
in the near future. Accordingly, we will require the use of Commission-
certified EAS decoders or decoder/encoders by all LPFM stations when
they commence operations. It will be several months before the first
LPFM stations are on the air. Given that decoders are already on the
market, this should be ample time to obtain Commission certification
and make certified units available for purchase. If certified decoder
equipment is not available at that time, we can grant a temporary
exemption for LPFM stations until such time as it is reasonably
available. Once the licensee has installed decoding equipment, if the
station is on the air at the time it receives a national emergency
alert message, station personnel must pass the information along to
listeners.
169. Finally, we will continue to grant waivers of EAS requirements
to broadcasters, including LPFM licensees, on a case-by-case basis in
appropriate circumstances upon a sufficient showing of need. As we
outlined in the EAS First Report and Order, the waiver request must
contain at least the following: (1) Justification for waiver, with
reference to the particular rule sections for which a waiver is sought;
(2) information about the financial status of the entity, such as a
balance sheet and income statement for up to the previous two years
(audited, if possible); (3) the number of other entities that serve the
requesting entity's coverage area and that have or are expected to
install EAS equipment; and (4) the likelihood (such as proximity or
frequency) of hazardous risks to the requesting entity's audience.
III. Conclusion
170. In this final rule, we set the stage for a new dimension in
radio broadcasting, creating additional, affordable outlets for the
expression of views and the provision of information and entertainment
to local communities. By limiting participants in this service to
noncommercial, educational organizations, we hope to ensure that this
service will meet needs unmet by the commercial radio service. Through
eligibility requirements, selection preference factors, and the
relatively small range of LPFM stations, we hope to create a service
that will serve the distinct needs of small local communities. Mindful
of the need to protect the technical integrity of the existing radio
service and to preserve its potential transition to digital service,
however, we are proceeding cautiously. Accordingly, we are limiting
radio stations in the LPFM service to a maximum of 100 watts. We are
also maintaining 2nd-adjacent channel protection. Based on our
engineers' careful review of the technical data submitted to the
Commission, as well as their own studies, we are confident that any
risk of interference is small and, on balance, outweighed by the
benefits this new service will bring.
IV. Administrative Matters
171. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This Report and Order has
been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and
found to impose new or modified reporting and recordkeeping
requirements or burdens on the public. Implementation of these new or
modified reporting and recordkeeping requirements will be subject to
approval by the Office of Management and Budget as prescribed by the
Act.
V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
172. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
Notice of
[[Page 7638]]
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission sought written public
comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No
comments were received in response to the IRFA. This present Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
Need for and Objectives of the Report and Order
173. The Commission received petitions for rulemaking asking for
the creation of a low power radio service. Because they raised similar
or identical issues, the Commission coordinated its responses to them.
The Commission released public notices of its receipt of three of the
proposals and invited public comment on them. In response to
significant public support, the Commission released the NPRM to propose
a new, low power FM service.
174. In the Report and Order, the Commission is adopting a 100-watt
class (LP100) and a 10-watt class (LP10). Because of the predicted
lower construction and operational costs of LPFM stations as opposed to
full power facilities, we expect that small entities would be expected
to have few economic obstacles to becoming LPFM licensees. Therefore,
this new service may serve as a vehicle for small entities and under-
represented groups (including women and minorities) to gain valuable
broadcast experience and to add their voices to their local
communities.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
175. No comments were received in response to the IRFA.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules
Will Apply
176. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will
be affected by the rules. The RFA generally defines the term ``small
entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small business,''
``small organization,'' and ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In
addition, the term ``small business'' has the same meaning as the term
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small
business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated;
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA). A small organization is generally ``any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 1992, there were
approximately 275,801 small organizations. ``Small governmental
jurisdiction'' generally means ``governments of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts,
with a population of less than 50,000.'' The Census Bureau estimates
that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental
entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that
81,600 (91 per cent) are small entities.
177. The Small Business Administration defines a radio broadcasting
station that has $5 million or less in annual receipts as a small
business. A radio broadcasting station is an establishment primarily
engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Included
in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other
radio stations. The 1992 Census indicates that 96 percent (5,861 of
6,127) radio station establishments produced less than $5 million in
revenue in 1992. Official Commission records indicate that 11,334
individual radio stations were operating in 1992. As of December 31,
1998, Commission records indicate that 12,615 radio stations were
operating, of which 7,832 were FM stations.
178. The rules will apply to a new category of FM radio
broadcasting service. It is not known how many entities that may seek
to obtain a low power radio license. Nor do we know how many of these
entities will be small entities. We note, however, that in the year
since we issued the NPRM, the Commission's LPFM website has received
approximately 100,000 hits, demonstrating the interest of individuals
and groups in operating such a facility. In addition, we expect that,
due to the small size of low power FM stations, small entities would
generally have a greater interest than large ones in acquiring them.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
179. The Commission is creating a new broadcasting service that may
allow hundreds or thousands of small entities to become broadcast
licensees for the first time. This endeavor will require the collection
of information for the purposes of processing applications for (among
other things) initial construction permits, assignments and transfers,
and renewals. We will also require lower power radio stations to comply
with some of the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements as full power radio broadcasters.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
180. The RFA requires agencies to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives: (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
181. The LP100 and LP10 services are likely to create significant
opportunities for new small businesses. In addition, the Commission has
taken steps to minimize the impact on existing small broadcasters.
182. Creating New Opportunities for Small Businesses. The Report
and Order adopts a number of rules designed to help small businesses
obtain and retain LP100 and LP10 licenses. These include ownership
rules, and exemptions from mandatory electronic filing and main studio
requirements.
183. The Report and Order adopts ownership rules to assist small
entities acquire or construct LPFM stations. Parties with attributable
interests in any full power broadcast facilities are not eligible to
have any ownership interest in any low power radio stations; this
prevents large group owners (or even large single-station owners) from
constructing and operating LPFM facilities that might otherwise be
available to small entities. The local and national ownership
restrictions of one station per community and, initially, one station,
and ultimately, 10 stations, nationwide are intended to ensure that
ample LPFM stations are available for small entities. However, the
ownership rules also prohibit small entity full power broadcasters from
acquiring LPFM licenses.
184. The Report and Order also modifies the application of some of
our programming and service requirements for LPFM stations. Full power
and LPFM stations alike are required to maintain a public file that
includes their authorizations, issues and programming lists, and
political files. However, unlike full power stations which must create
quarterly issues and programming lists and maintain a main studio with
a staff
[[Page 7639]]
presence, LPFM stations must generate only annual issues and
programming lists, and need not maintain a main studio, and so may
operate out of even a private residence. In addition, while full power
and LPFM stations both must participate in the Emergency Alert System
(EAS) and have decoding equipment, LPFM stations need not purchase
encoding equipment. These exemptions from and modifications of the
application of the Commission's programming and service requirements to
LPFM stations will reduce administrative burdens and costs for small
business licensees.
185. The Report and Order also adopts filing requirements that
should help small businesses. Although the NPRM proposed to mandate
electronic filing for LPFM stations, the Report and Order declined to
do so for the first round of LP100 applications. The Commission made
this decision because it recognized that there might be a disparity
between applicants for LP100 licenses in terms of computer resources
and skills. This result should help small businesses without more
advanced technological resources still participation in the LP100
application process. The Report and Order adopts a window filing
process, as opposed to a first-come, first-served process; some
commenters claimed that the latter process would favor applicants with
superior financial and technical resources.
186. Minimizing Impact on Existing Small Business Broadcast
Stations. The Report and Order has also adopted an alternative that
will minimize the impact on existing small business broadcast stations.
LP100 and LP10 stations will be noncommercial, educational stations,
and so will not compete with small business commercial broadcasters for
advertising revenue.
Report to Congress
187. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order,
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of
the Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Report and
Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).
VI. Ordering Clauses
188. Accordingly, pursuant to authority contained in sections 1,
4(i), 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154(i), 303, part 73 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 73, is
amended.
189. The amendments shall be effective April 17, 2000.
190. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order,
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for the Small Business Administration.
191. This proceeding is terminated.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 11
Emergency alert system.
47 CFR Part 73 and Part 74
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
For the reasons set forth in the preamble parts 11, 73 and 74 of
Title 47 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations is amended to read as
follows:
PART 11--EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS)
1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 303(r), 544(g) and
606.
2. Section 11.11 is amended by:
(1) Adding in paragraph (a) the words ``Low Power FM (LPFM)'' in
the first sentence after the word ``FM''.
(2) Revising the table ``Timetable Broadcast Stations''.
(3) Revising the first sentence of paragraph (b).
3. The amendments are to read as follows:
Sec. 11.11 The Emergency Alert System (EAS).
* * * * *
Timetable--Broadcast Stations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirement AM&FM TV FM Class D LPTV LPFM 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two-tone encoder 2 3.......... Y Y N N N
Two-tone decoder 4 5.......... Y Y Y Y N
EAS decoder................... Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y 1/197 Y
EAS encoder................... Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 N N N
Audio message................. Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y
Video message................. NA Y 1/1/97 N/A Y 1/1/97 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 LPTV stations that operate as television broadcast translator stations are exempt from the requirement to have
EAS equipment.
2 Effective July 1, 1995, the two-tone signal must be 8-25 seconds.
3 Effective January 1, 1998, the two-tone signal may only be used to provide audio alerts to audiences before
EAS emergency messages and the required monthly tests.
4 Effective July 1, 1995, the two-tone decoder must respond to two-tone signals of 3-4 seconds duration.
5 Effective January 1, 1998, the two-tone decoder will no longer be used.
* * * * *
(b) Class D noncommercial educational FM stations as defined in
Sec. 73.506, LPFM stations as defined in Secs. 73.811 and 73.853, and
LPTV stations as defined in Sec. 74.701(f) are not required to comply
with Sec. 11.32. * * *
* * * * *
4. Section 11.51 (e) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 11.51 EAS code and Attention Signal Transmission requirements.
* * * * *
(e) Class D non-commercial educational FM stations as defined in
Sec. 73.506 of this chapter, Low Power FM (LPFM) stations as defined in
Secs. 73.811 and 73.853 of this chapter, and low power TV (LPTV)
stations as defined in Sec. 74.701(f) of this chapter are not required
to have equipment capable of generating the EAS codes and Attention
Signal specified in Sec. 11.31.
* * * * *
5. Section 11.53(a)(3) is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 7640]]
Sec. 11.53 Dissemination of Emergency Action Notification.
(a) * * *
(3) Wire services to all subscribers (AM, FM, low power FM (LPFM),
TV, LPTV and other stations).
* * * * *
6. Section 11.61 is amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraph (a)(1)(v) and revising paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 11.61 Tests of EAS procedures.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * * Class D non-commercial educational FM, LPFM and LPTV
stations are required to transmit only the test script.
(2) * * *
(iii) Class D non-commercial educational FM, LPFM and LPTV stations
are not required to transmit this test but must log receipt.
* * * * *
PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: (47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.)
2. Section 73.209 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read, as
follows:
Sec. 73.209 Protection from interference.
* * * * *
(c) Permittees and licensees of FM stations are not protected from
interference which may be created by the grant of a new LPFM station or
of authority to modify an existing LPFM station, except in instances
where the FM station would receive predicted interference from an LPFM
station within the FM station's 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour.
3. Section 73.508 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 73.508 Standards of good engineering practice.
(a) All noncommercial educational stations and LPFM stations
operating with more than 10 watts transmitter power output shall be
subject to all of the provisions of the FM Technical Standards
contained in subpart B of this part. Class D educational stations and
LPFM stations operating with 10 watts or less transmitter output power
shall be subject to the definitions contained in Sec. 73.310, and also
to those other provisions of the FM Technical Standards which are
specifically made applicable to them by the provisions of this subpart.
(b) The transmitter and associated transmitting equipment of each
noncommercial educational FM station and LPFM station licensed for
transmitter power output above 10 watts must be designed, constructed
and operated in accordance with Sec. 73.317.
(c) The transmitter and associated transmitting equipment of each
noncommercial educational FM station licensed for transmitter power
output of 10 watts or less, although not required to meet all
requirements of Sec. 73.317, must be constructed with the safety
provisions of the current national electrical code as approved by the
American National Standards Institute. These stations must be operated,
tuned, and adjusted so that emissions are not radiated outside the
authorized band causing or which are capable of causing interference to
the communications of other stations. The audio distortion, audio
frequency range, carrier hum, noise level, and other essential phases
of the operation which control the external effects, must be at all
times capable of providing satisfactory broadcast service. Studio
equipment properly covered by an underwriter's certificate will be
considered as satisfying safety requirements.
4. Section 73.514 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 73.514 Protection from interference.
Permittees and licensees of NCE FM stations are not protected from
interference which may be created by the grant of a new LPFM station or
of authority to modify an existing LPFM station, except in instances
where the NCE FM station would receive interference from an LPFM
station within the 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour.
5. Subpart G of part 73 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart G--Low Power FM Broadcast Stations (LPFM)
Sec.
73.801 Broadcast regulations applicable to LPFM stations.
73.805 Availability of channels.
73.807 Minimum distance separation between stations.
73.808 Distance computations.
73.809 Interference protection to full service FM stations.
73.811 LPFM power and antenna height requirements.
73.812 Rounding of power and antenna heights.
73.813 Determination of antenna height above average terrain
(HAAT).
73.816 Antennas.
73.825 Protection to Reception of TV Channel 6.
73.840 Operating power and mode tolerances.
73.845 Transmission system operation.
73.850 Operating schedule.
73.853 Licensing requirements and service.
73.854 Unlicensed operations.
73.855 Ownership limits.
73.858 Attribution of LPFM station interests.
73.860 Cross-ownership.
73.865 Assignment and transfer of LPFM authorizations.
73.870 Processing of LPFM broadcast station applications.
73.872 Selection procedure for mutually exclusive LPFM
applications.
73.873 LPFM license period.
73.875 Modification of transmission systems.
73.877 Station logs for LPFM stations.
73.878 Station inspections by FCC; availability to FCC of station
logs and records.
73.879 Signal retransmission.
73.881 Equal employment opportunities.
Sec. 73.801 Broadcast regulations applicable to LPFM stations.
The following rules are applicable to LPFM stations:
Section 73.201 Numerical definition of FM broadcast channels.
Section 73.220 Restrictions on use of channels.
Section 73.267 Determining operating power.
Section 73.277 Permissible transmissions.
Section 73.297 FM stereophonic sound broadcasting.
Section 73.310 FM technical definitions.
Section 73.312 Topographic data.
Section 73.318 FM blanketing interference.
Section 73.322 FM stereophonic sound transmission standards.
Section 73.333 Engineering charts.
Section 73.503 Licensing requirements and service.
Section 73.508 Standards of good engineering practice.
Section 73.593 Subsidiary communications services.
Section 73.1015 Truthful written statements and responses to
Commission inquiries and correspondence.
Section 73.1030 Notifications concerning interference to radio
astronomy, research and receiving installations.
Section 73.1201 Station identification.
Section 73.1206 Broadcast of telephone conversations.
Section 73.1207 Rebroadcasts.
Section 73.1208 Broadcast of taped, filmed, or recorded material.
Section 73.1210 TV/FM dual-language broadcasting in Puerto Rico.
Section 73.1211 Broadcast of lottery information.
Section 73.1212 Sponsorship identification; list retention; related
requirements.
Section 73.1213 Antenna structure, marking and lighting.
Section 73.1216 Licensee-conducted contests.
Section 73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes.
Section 73.1230 Posting of station license.
Section 73.1250 Broadcasting emergency information.
Section 73.1300 Unattended station operation.
[[Page 7641]]
Section 73.1400 Transmission system monitoring and control.
Section 73.1520 Operation for tests and maintenance.
Section 73.1540 Carrier frequency measurements.
Section 73.1545 Carrier frequency departure tolerances.
Section 73.1570 Modulation levels: AM, FM, and TV aural.
Section 73.1580 Transmission system inspections.
Section 73.1610 Equipment tests.
Section 73.1620 Program tests.
Section 73.1650 International agreements.
Section 73.1660 Acceptability of broadcast transmitters.
Section 73.1665 Main transmitters.
Section 73.1692 Broadcast station construction near or installation
on an AM broadcast tower.
Section 73.1745 Unauthorized operation.
Section 73.1750 Discontinuance of operation.
Section 73.1920 Personal attacks.
Section 73.1940 Legally qualified candidates for public office.
Section 73.1941 Equal opportunities.
Section 73.1943 Political file.
Section 73.1944 Reasonable access.
Section 73.3511 Applications required.
Section 73.3512 Where to file; number of copies.
Section 73.3513 Signing of applications.
Section 73.3514 Content of applications.
Section 73.3516 Specification of facilities.
Section 73.3517 Contingent applications.
Section 73.3518 Inconsistent or conflicting applications.
Section 73.3519 Repetitious applications.
Section 73.3520 Multiple applications.
Section 73.3525 Agreements for removing application conflicts.
Section 73.3539 Application for renewal of license.
Section 73.3542 Application for emergency authorization.
Section 73.3545 Application for permit to deliver programs to
foreign stations.
Section 73.3550 Requests for new or modified call sign assignments.
Section 73.3561 Staff consideration of applications requiring
Commission consideration.
Section 73.3562 Staff consideration of applications not requiring
action by the Commission.
Section 73.3566 Defective applications.
Section 73.3568 Dismissal of applications.
Section 73.3584 Procedure for filing petitions to deny.
Section 73.3587 Procedure for filing informal objections.
Section 73.3588 Dismissal of petitions to deny or withdrawal of
informal objections.
Section 73.3589 Threats to file petitions to deny or informal
objections.
Section 73.3591 Grants without hearing.
Section 73.3593 Designation for hearing.
Section 73.3598 Period of construction.
Section 73.3599 Forfeiture of construction permit.
Section 73.3999 Enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1464--restrictions on the
transmission of obscene and indecent material.
Sec. 73.805 Availability of channels.
Except as provided in Sec. 73.220 of this chapter, all of the
frequencies listed in Sec. 73.201 of this chapter are available for
LPFM stations.
Sec. 73.807 Minimum distance separation between stations.
Minimum separation requirements for LP100 and LP10 stations, as
defined in Sec. 73.811 and Sec. 73.853 of this part, are listed in the
following paragraphs. An LPFM station will not be authorized unless
these separations are met. Minimum distances for co-channel and first-
adjacent channel are separated into two columns. The left-hand column
lists the required minimum separation to protect other stations and the
right-hand column lists (for informational purposes only) the minimum
distance necessary for the LPFM station to receive no interference from
other stations. For second-adjacent channels and IF channels, the
required minimum distance separation is sufficient to avoid
interference received from other stations.
(a) An LP100 station will not be authorized initially unless the
minimum distance separations in the following table are met with
respect to authorized FM stations, timely filed applications for new
and existing FM stations, authorized LP100 stations, LP100 station
applications that were timely-filed within a previous window, and
vacant FM allotments. LP100 stations are not required to protect LP10
stations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-channel minimum separation First-adjacent channel minimum Second-
(km) separation (km) adjacent I.F . Channel
---------------------------------------------------------------- channel minimum
Station class protected by LP100 For no For no minimum separations
Required interference Required interference separation 10.6 or 10.8
received received (km) required MHz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LP100................................................... 24 24 14 14 (1) (1)
D....................................................... 24 24 13 13 6 4
A....................................................... 67 92 56 56 29 7
B1...................................................... 87 119 74 74 46 9
B....................................................... 112 143 97 97 67 12
C3...................................................... 78 119 67 67 40 9
C2...................................................... 91 143 80 84 53 12
C1...................................................... 111 178 100 111 73 20
C....................................................... 130 203 120 142 93 28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 None.
(b) An LP10 station will not be authorized unless the minimum
distance separations are met with respect to authorized FM stations,
timely-filed applications for new and existing FM stations, vacant FM
allotments, or LPFM stations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-channel minimum separation First-adjacent channel minimum Second-
(km) separation (km) adjacent I.F . Channel
---------------------------------------------------------------- channel minimum
Station class protected by LP10 For no for no minimum separations
Required interference required interference separation 10.6 or 10.8
received received (km) required MHz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LP100................................................... 16 22 10 11 (1) (1)
LP10.................................................... 13 13 8 8 (1) (1)
D....................................................... 16 21 10 11 6 2
A....................................................... 59 90 53 53 29 5
B1...................................................... 77 117 70 70 45 8
B....................................................... 99 141 91 91 66 11
C3...................................................... 69 117 64 64 39 8
[[Page 7642]]
C2...................................................... 82 141 77 81 52 11
C1...................................................... 103 175 97 108 73 18
C....................................................... 122 201 116 140 92 26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 None.
(c) In addition to meeting or exceeding the minimum separations for
Class LP100 and Class LP10 stations in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section, new LP100 and LP10 stations will not be authorized in Puerto
Rico or the Virgin Islands unless the minimum distance separations are
met with respect to authorized or proposed FM stations:
(1) LP100 Stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-channel minimum separation First-adjacent channel minimum Second-
(km) separation (km) adjacent I.F . Channel
---------------------------------------------------------------- channel minimum
Station class protected by LP100 For no For no minimum separations
Required interference required interference separation 10.6 or 10.8
received received (km) Required MHz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A....................................................... 80 111 70 70 42 9
B1...................................................... 95 128 82 82 53 11
B....................................................... 138 179 123 123 92 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) LP10 Stations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-channel minimum separation First-adjacent channel minimum Second-
(km) separation (km) adjacent I.F . Channel
---------------------------------------------------------------- channel minimum
Station class protected by LP10 For no For no minimum separations
Required interference Required interference separation 10.6 or 10.8
received received (km) required MHz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A....................................................... 72 108 66 66 42 8
B1...................................................... 84 125 78 78 53 9
B....................................................... 126 177 118 118 92 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note to paragraphs (a), (b), and (c): Minimum distance
separations towards ``grandfathered'' superpowered Reserved Band
stations, are as specified. Full service FM stations operating
within the reserved band (Channels 201-220) with facilities in
excess of those permitted in Sec. 73.211(b)(1) or Sec. 73.211(b)(3)
shall be protected by LPFM stations in accordance with the minimum
distance separations for the nearest class as determined under
Sec. 73.211. For example, a Class B1 station operating with
facilities that result in a 60 dBu contour that exceeds 39
kilometers but is less than 52 kilometers would be protected by the
Class B minimum distance separations. Class D stations with 60 dBu
contours that exceed 5 kilometers will be protected by the Class A
minimum distance separations. Class B stations with 60 dBu contours
that exceed 52 kilometers will be protected as Class C1 or Class C
stations depending upon the distance to the 60 dBu contour. No
stations will be protected beyond Class C separations.
(d) In addition to meeting the separations (a) through (c), LPFM
applications must meet the minimum separation requirements with respect
to authorized FM translator stations, cutoff FM translator
applications, and FM translator applications filed prior to the release
of the Public Notice announcing the LPFM window period:
(1) LP100 stations:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-channel minimum separation First-adjacent channel minimum
(km) separation (km) Second-adjacent I.F . Channel
-------------------------------------------------------------------- channel minimum minimum
Distance to FM translator 60 dBu contour For no For no separation separation (km)
Required interference required interference (km) required 10.6 or 10.8
received received MHz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.3 km or greater................................ 39 67 28 35 21 5
Greater than 7.3 km, but less than 13.3 km........ 32 51 21 26 14 5
7.3 km or less.................................... 26 30 15 16 8 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) LP10 Stations:
[[Page 7643]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-channel minimum separation First-adjacent channel minimum
(km) separation (km) Second-adjacent I.F . Channel
-------------------------------------------------------------------- channel minimum minimum
Distance to FM translator 60 dBu contour For no For no separation separation (km)
Required interference required interference (km) required 10.6 or 10.8
received received MHz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.3 km or greater................................ 30 65 25 33 20 3
Greater than 7.3 km, but less than 13.3 km........ 24 49 18 23 14 3
7.3 km or less.................................... 18 28 12 14 8 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Existing Class LP100 and LP10 stations which do not meet the
separations in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section may be
relocated provided that the separation to any short-spaced station is
not reduced.
(f) Commercial and noncommercial educational stations authorized
under subparts B and C of this part, as well as new or modified
commercial FM allotments, are not required to adhere to the separations
specified in this rule section, even where new or increased
interference would be created.
(g) International considerations within the border zones. (1)
Within 320 km of the Canadian border, LP100 stations must meet the
following minimum separations with respect to any Canadian stations:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermediate
Canadian station class Co-channel (km) First- adjacent Second- adjacent Third- adjacent frequency (IF)
channel (km) channel (km) channel (km) channel (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A1....................................................... 45 30 21 20 4
A........................................................ 66 50 41 40 7
B1....................................................... 78 62 53 52 9
B........................................................ 92 76 68 66 12
C1....................................................... 113 98 89 88 19
C........................................................ 118 106 99 98 28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Within 320 km of the Mexican border, LP100 stations must meet
the following separations with respect to any Mexican stations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second-/third- Intermediate
Mexican station class Co-channel (km) First- adjacent adjacent channel frequency (IF)
channel (km) (km) channel (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................................... 43 32 25 5
AA.................................. 47 36 29 6
B1.................................. 67 54 45 8
B................................... 91 76 66 11
C1.................................. 91 80 73 19
C................................... 110 100 92 27
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Within 320 km of the Canadian border, LP10 stations must meet
the following minimum separations with respect to any Canadian
stations:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermediate
Canadian station class Co-channel (km) First- adjacent Second- adjacent Third- adjacent frequency (IF)
channel (km) channel (km) channel (km) channel (km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A1....................................................... 33 25 23 19 3
A........................................................ 53 45 43 39 5
B1....................................................... 65 57 55 51 8
B........................................................ 79 71 70 66 11
C1....................................................... 101 93 91 87 18
C........................................................ 108 102 100 97 26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Within 320 km of the Mexican border, LP10 stations must meet
the following separations with respect to any Mexican stations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second-/third- Intermediate
Mexican station class Co-channel (km) First- adjacent adjacent channel frequency (IF)
channel (km) (km) channel (km)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................................... 34 29 24 5
AA.................................. 39 33 29 5
B1.................................. 57 50 45 8
B................................... 79 71 66 11
C1.................................. 83 77 73 18
C................................... 102 96 92 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7644]]
(5) The Commission will notify the International Telecommunications
Union (ITU) of any LPFM authorizations in the US Virgin Islands. Any
authorization issued for a US Virgin Islands LPFM station will include
a condition that permits the Commission to modify, suspend or terminate
without right to a hearing if found by the Commission to be necessary
to conform to any international regulations or agreements.
(6) The Commission may, at its option, initiate international
coordination of a LPFM proposal even where the above Canadian and
Mexican spacing tables are met, if it appears that such coordination is
necessary to maintain compliance with international agreements.
Sec. 73.808 Distance computations.
For the purposes of determining compliance with any LPFM distance
requirements, distances shall be calculated in accordance with
Sec. 73.208(c) of this part.
Sec. 73.809 Interference protection to full service FM stations.
(a) It shall be the responsibility of the licensee of an LPFM
station to correct at its expense any condition of interference to the
direct reception of the signal of any subsequently authorized
commercial or NCE FM station that operates on the same channel, first-
adjacent channel, second-adjacent channel or intermediate frequency
(IF) channels as the LPFM station, where interference is predicted to
occur and actually occurs within the 3.16 mV/m (70 dBu) contour of such
stations. Predicted interference within this contour shall be
calculated in accordance with the ratios set forth in Sec. 73.215(a)(1)
and (2) of this part. Actual interference will be considered to occur
whenever reception of a regularly used signal is impaired by the
signals radiated by the LPFM station.
(b) An LPFM station will be provided an opportunity to demonstrate
in connection with the procession of the commercial or NCE FM
application that interference with the 3.16 mV/m contour of such
station is unlikely. If the LPFM station fails to so demonstrate, it
will be required to cease operations upon the commencement of program
tests by the commercial or NCE FM station.
(c) Complaints of actual interference by an LPFM station subject to
paragraph (b) within the 3.16 mV/m contour of a commercial or NCE FM
station must be served on the LPFM licensee and the Federal
Communications Commission, attention Audio Services Division. The LPFM
station must suspend operations within twenty-four hours of the receipt
of such complaint unless the interference has been resolved to the
satisfaction of the complainant on the basis of suitable techniques. An
LPFM station may only resume operations at the direction of the Federal
Communications Commission. If the Commission determines that the
complainant has refused to permit the LPFM station to apply remedial
techniques that demonstrably will eliminate the interference without
impairment of the original reception, the licensee of the LPFM station
is absolved of further responsibility.
(d) It shall be the responsibility of the licensee of an LPFM
station to correct any condition of interference that results from the
radiation of radio frequency energy outside its assigned channel. Upon
notice by the FCC to the station licensee or operator that such
interference is caused by spurious emissions of the station, operation
of the station shall be immediately suspended and not resumed until the
interference has been eliminated. However, short test transmissions may
be made during the period of suspended operation to check the efficacy
of remedial measures.
(e) In each instance where suspension of operation is required, the
licensee shall submit a full report to the FCC in Washington, DC, after
operation is resumed, containing details of the nature of the
interference, the source of the interfering signals, and the remedial
steps taken to eliminate the interference.
Sec. 73.811 LPFM power and antenna height requirements.
(a) LP100 stations: (1) Maximum facilities. LP100 stations will be
authorized to operate with maximum facilities of 100 watts effective
radiated power (ERP) at 30 meters antenna height above average terrain
(HAAT). An LP100 station with a HAAT that exceeds 30 meters will not be
permitted to operate with an ERP greater than that which would result
in a 60 dBu contour of 5.6 kilometers. In no event will an ERP less
than one watt be authorized. No facility will be authorized in excess
of one watt ERP at 450 meters HAAT.
(2) Minimum facilities. LP100 stations may not operate with
facilities less than 50 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT or the equivalent
necessary to produce a 60 dBu contour that extends at least 4.7
kilometers.
(b) LP10 stations: (1) Maximum Facilities. LP10 stations will be
authorized to operate with maximum facilities of 10 watts ERP at 30
meters HAAT. An LP10 station with a HAAT that exceeds 30 meters will
not be permitted to operate with an ERP greater than that which would
result in a 60 dBu contour of 3.2 kilometers. In no event will an ERP
less than one watt be authorized. No facility will be authorized in
excess of one watt ERP at 100 meters HAAT.
(2) Minimum Facilities. LP10 stations may not operate with less
than one watt ERP.
Sec. 73.812 Rounding of power and antenna heights.
(a) Effective radiated power (ERP) will be rounded to the nearest
watt on LPFM authorizations.
(b) Antenna radiation center, antenna height above average terrain
(HAAT), and antenna supporting structure height will all be rounded to
the nearest meter on LPFM authorizations.
Sec. 73.813 Determination of antenna height above average terrain
(HAAT).
HAAT determinations for LPFM stations will be made in accordance
with the procedure detailed in Sec. 73.313(d) of this part.
Sec. 73.816 Antennas.
(a) Directional antennas will not be authorized in the LPFM
service.
(b) Permittees and licensees may employ nondirectional antennas
with horizontal only polarization, vertical only polarization, circular
polarization or elliptical polarization.
Sec. 73.825 Protection to Reception of TV Channel 6.
LPFM stations will be authorized on Channels 201 through 220 only
if the pertinent minimum separation distances are met with respect to
all TV Channel 6 stations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class LP100 to TV Class LP10 to TV
FM Channel No. Channel 6 (km) Channel 6 (km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
201............................... 219 171
202............................... 204 162
203............................... 188 156
[[Page 7645]]
204............................... 179 153
205............................... 167 149
206............................... 156 143
207............................... 151 141
208............................... 151 141
209............................... 151 141
210............................... 151 141
211............................... 151 141
212............................... 149 140
213............................... 147 139
214............................... 145 138
215............................... 143 137
216............................... 142 136
217............................... 142 136
218............................... 139 134
219............................... 137 134
220............................... 136 133
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 73.840 Operating power and mode tolerances.
The transmitter power output (TPO) of an LPFM station must be
determined by the procedures set forth in Sec. 73.267 of this part. The
operating TPO of an LPFM station with an authorized TPO of more than
ten watts must be maintained as near as practicable to its authorized
TPO and may not be less than 90% of the minimum TPO nor greater than
105% of the maximum authorized TPO. An LPFM station with an authorized
TPO of ten watts or less may operate with less than the authorized
power, but not more than 105% of the authorized power.
Sec. 73.845 Transmission system operation.
Each LPFM licensee is responsible for maintaining and operating its
broadcast station in a manner that complies with the technical rules
set forth elsewhere in this part and in accordance with the terms of
the station authorization. In the event that an LPFM station is
operating in a manner that is not in compliance with the technical
rules set forth elsewhere in this part or the terms of the station
authorization, broadcast operation must be terminated within three
hours.
Sec. 73.850 Operating schedule.
(a) All LPFM stations will be licensed for unlimited time
operation, except those stations operating under a time sharing
agreement pursuant to Sec. 73.872.
(b) All LPFM stations are required to operate at least 36 hours per
week, consisting of at least 5 hours of operation per day on at least 6
days of the week; however, stations licensed to educational
institutions are not required to operate on Saturday or Sunday or to
observe the minimum operating requirements during those days designated
on the official school calendar as vacation or recess periods.
Sec. 73.853 Licensing requirements and service.
(a) An LPFM station may be licensed only to:
(1) Nonprofit educational organizations and upon a showing that the
proposed station will be used for the advancement of an educational
program; and
(2) State and local governments and non-government entities that
will provide non-commercial public safety radio services.
(b) Only local applicants will be permitted to submit applications
for a period of two years from the date that LP100 and LP10 stations,
respectively, are first made available for application. For the
purposes of this paragraph, an applicant will be deemed local if it can
certify that:
(1) The applicant, its local chapter or branch is physically
headquartered or has a campus within 16.1 km (10 miles) of the proposed
site for the transmitting antenna;
(2) It has 75% of its board members residing within 16.1 km (10
miles) of the proposed site for the transmitting antenna; or
(3) In the case of any applicant proposing a public safety radio
service, the applicant has jurisdiction within the service area of the
proposed LPFM station.
Sec. 73.854 Unlicensed operations.
No application for an LPFM station may be granted unless the
applicant certifies, under penalty of perjury, to one of the following
statements:
(a) Neither the applicant, nor any party to the application, has
engaged in any manner including individually or with persons, groups,
organizations or other entities, in the unlicensed operation of any
station in violation of section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 301.
(b) To the extent the applicant or any party to the application has
engaged in any manner, individually or with other persons, groups,
organizations or other entities, in the unlicensed operation of a
station in violation of section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 301, such an engagement:
(1) Ceased voluntarily no later than February 26, 1999, without
direction from the FCC to do so; or
(2) Ceased operation within 24 hours of being directed by the FCC
to terminate unlicensed operation of any station.
Sec. 73.855 Ownership limits.
(a) No authorization for an LPFM station shall be granted to any
party if the grant of that authorization will result in any such party
holding an attributable interest in two LPFM stations separated by less
than 12 km (7 miles).
(b) Nationwide ownership limits will be phased in according to the
following schedule:
(1) For a period of two years from the date that the LPFM stations
are first made available for application, a party may hold an
attributable interest in no more than one LPFM station.
(2) For the period between two and three years from the date that
the initial filing window opens for LPFM applications, a party may hold
an attributable interest in no more than five LPFM stations.
(3) After three years from the date that the initial filing window
opens for LPFM stations, a party may hold an attributable interest in
no more than ten stations.
[[Page 7646]]
Sec. 73.858 Attribution of LPFM station interests.
Ownership and other interests in LPFM station permittees and
licensees will be attributed to their holders and deemed cognizable for
the purposes of Secs. 73.855 and 73.860, in accordance with the
provisions of Sec. 73.3555, subject to the following exceptions:
(a) A director of an entity that holds an LPFM license will not
have such interest treated as attributable if such director also holds
an attributable interest in a broadcast licensee or other media entity
but recuses himself or herself from any matters affecting the LPFM
station.
(b) A local chapter of a national or other large organization shall
not have the attributable interests of the national organization
attributed to it provided that the local chapter is separately
incorporated and has a distinct local presence and mission.
(c) A parent or subsidiary of a LPFM licensee or permittee that is
a non-stock corporation will be treated as having an attributable
interest in such corporation. The officers, directors, and members of a
non-stock corporation's governing body and of any parent or subsidiary
entity will have such positional interests attributed to them.
Sec. 73.860 Cross-ownership.
(a) No license for an LPFM station shall be granted to any party if
the grant of such authorization will result in the same party holding
an attributable interest in any other non-LPFM broadcast station,
including any FM translator or low power television station, or any
other media subject to broadcast ownership restrictions.
(b) A party with an attributable interest in a broadcast radio
station must divest such interest prior to the commencement of
operations of an LPFM station in which the party also holds an
interest.
(c) No LPFM licensee may enter into an operating agreement of any
type, including a time brokerage or management agreement, with either a
full power broadcast station or another LPFM station.
Sec. 73.865 Assignment and transfer of LPFM authorizations.
(a) An LPFM authorization may not be transferred or assigned except
for a transfer or assignment that involves:
(1) Less than a substantial change in ownership and control; or
(2) An involuntary assignment of license or transfer of control.
(b) A change in the name of an LPFM licensee where no change in
ownership or control is involved may be accomplished by written
notification by the licensee to the Commission.
Sec. 73.870 Processing of LPFM broadcast station applications.
(a) A minor change for an LP100 station authorized under this
subpart is limited to transmitter relocations of less than two
kilometers. A minor change for an LP10 station authorized under this
subpart cannot is limited to transmitter site relocations of less than
one kilometer. Minor changes of LPFM stations may include changes in
frequency to adjacent or IF frequencies, or, upon a technical showing
of reduced interference, to any frequency.
(b) The Commission will specify by Public Notice a window filing
period for applications for new LPFM stations and major modifications
in the facilities of authorized LPFM stations. LPFM applications for
new facilities and for major modifications in authorized LPFM stations
will be accepted only during the appropriate window. Applications
submitted prior to the window opening date identified in the Public
Notice will be returned as premature. Applications submitted after the
deadline will be dismissed with prejudice as untimely.
(c) Applications subject to paragraph (b) of this section that fail
to meet the Sec. 73.807 minimum distance separations, other than to
LPFM station facilities proposed in applications filed in the same
window, will be dismissed without any opportunity to amend such
applications.
(d) Following the close of the window, the Commission will issue a
Public Notice of acceptance for filing of applications submitted
pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section that meet technical and legal
requirements and that are not in conflict with any other application
filed during the window. Following the close of the window, the
Commission also will issue a Public Notice of the acceptance for filing
of all applications tentatively selected pursuant to the procedures for
mutually exclusive LPFM applications set forth at Sec. 73.872.
Petitions to deny such applications may be filed within 30 days of such
public notice and in accordance with the procedures set forth at
Sec. 73.3584. A copy of any petition to deny must be served on the
applicant.
(e) Minor change LPFM applications may be filed at any time, unless
restricted by the staff, and generally, will be processed in the order
in which they are tendered. Such applications must meet all technical
and legal requirements applicable to new LPFM station applications.
Sec. 73.872 Selection procedure for mutually exclusive LPFM
applications.
(a) Following the close of each window for new LPFM stations and
for modifications in the facilities of authorized LPFM stations, the
Commission will issue a public notice identifying all groups of
mutually exclusive applications. Such applications will be awarded
points to determine the tentative selectee. Unless resolved by
settlement pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, the tentative
selectee will be the applicant within each group with the highest point
total under the procedure set forth in this section, except as provided
in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section .
(b) Each mutually exclusive application will be awarded one point
for each of the following criteria, based on application certification
that the qualifying conditions are met:
(1) Established community presence. An applicant must, for a period
of at least two years prior to application, have been physically
headquartered, have had a campus, or have had seventy-five percent of
its board members residing within 10 miles of the coordinates of the
proposed transmitting antenna. Applicants claiming a point for this
criterion must submit the documentation set forth in the application
form at the time of filing their applications.
(2) Proposed operating hours. The applicant must pledge to operate
at least 12 hours per day.
(3) Local program origination. The applicant must pledge to
originate locally at least eight hours of programming per day. For
purposes of this criterion, local origination is the production of
programming within 10 miles of the coordinates of the proposed
transmitting antenna.
(c) Voluntary time-sharing. If mutually exclusive applications have
the same point total, any two or more of the tied applicants may
propose to share use of the frequency by submitting, within 30 days of
the release of a public notice announcing the tie, a time-share
proposal. Such proposals shall be treated as amendments to the time-
share proponents' applications, and shall become part of the terms of
the station license. Where such proposals include all of the tied
applications, all of the tied applications will be treated as tentative
selectees; otherwise, time-share proponents' points will be aggregated
to determine the tentative selectees.
(1) Time-share proposals shall be in writing and signed by each
time-share proponent, and shall satisfy the following requirements:
[[Page 7647]]
(i) The proposal must specify the proposed hours of operation of
each time-share proponent;
(ii) The proposal must not include simultaneous operation of the
time-share proponents; and (iii) Each time-share proponent must propose
to operate for at least 10 hours per week.
(2) Where a station is licensed pursuant to a time-sharing
proposal, a change of the regular schedule set forth therein will be
permitted only where an written agreement signed by each time-sharing
licensee and complying with requirements (i) through (iii) of paragraph
(c)(1) of this section is filed with the Commission, Attention: Audio
Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, prior to the date of the change.
(d) Successive license terms. (1) If a tie among mutually exclusive
applications is not resolved through time-sharing in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section, the tied applications will be reviewed
for acceptability and applicants with tied, grantable applications will
be eligible for equal, successive, non-renewable license terms of no
less than one year each for a total combined term of eight years, in
accordance with Sec. 73.873. Eligible applications will be granted
simultaneously, and the sequence of the applicants' license terms will
be determined by the sequence in which they file applications for
licenses to cover their construction permits based on the day of
filing, except that eligible applicants proposing same-site facilities
will be required, within 30 days of written notification by the
Commission staff, to submit a written settlement agreement as to
construction and license term sequence. Failure to submit such an
agreement will result in the dismissal of the applications proposing
same-site facilities and the grant of the remaining, eligible
applications.
(2) Groups of more than eight tied, grantable applications will not
be eligible for successive license terms under this section. Where such
groups exist, the staff will dismiss all but the applications of the
eight entities with the longest established community presences, as
provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If more than eight tied,
grantable applications remain, the applicants must submit, within 30
days of written notification by the Commission staff, a written
settlement agreement limiting the group to eight. Failure to do so will
result in dismissal of the entire application group.
(e) Mutually exclusive applicants may propose a settlement at any
time during the selection process after the release of a public notice
announcing the mutually exclusive groups. Settlement proposals must
include all of the applicants in a group and must comply with the
Commission's rules and policies regarding settlements, including the
requirements of Secs. 73.3525, 73.3588, and 73.3589. Settlement
proposals may include time-share agreements that comply with the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, provided that such
agreements may not be filed for the purpose of point aggregation
outside of the thirty-day period set forth in paragraph (c) of this
section.
Sec. 73.873 LPFM license period.
(a) Initial licenses for LPFM stations not subject to successive
license terms will be issued for a period running until the date
specified in Sec. 73.1020 for full service stations operating in the
LPFM station's state or territory, or if issued after such date,
determined in accordance with Sec. 73.1020.
(b) The station license period issued under the successive license
term tiebreaker procedures will be determined pursuant to
Sec. 73.872(d) and shall be for the period specified in the station
license.
(c) The license of an LPFM station that fails to transmit broadcast
signals for any consecutive 12-month period expires as a matter of law
at the end of that period, notwithstanding any provision, term, or
condition of the license to the contrary.
Sec. 73.875 Modification of transmission systems.
The following procedures and restrictions apply to licensee
modifications of authorized broadcast transmission system facilities.
(a) The following changes are prohibited:
(1) Those that would result in the emission of signals outside of
the authorized channel exceeding limits prescribed for the class of
service.
(2) Those that would cause the transmission system to exceed the
equipment performance measurements prescribed in Sec. 73.508.
(b) The following changes may be made only after the grant of a
construction permit application on FCC Form 318.
(1) Any construction of a new tower structure for broadcast
purposes, except for replacement of an existing tower with a new tower
of identical height and geographic coordinates.
(2) Any change in station geographic coordinates, including
coordinate corrections and any move of the antenna to another tower
structure located at the same coordinates.
(3) Any change in antenna height more than 2 meters above or 4
meters below the authorized value.
(4) Any change in channel.
(c) The following LPFM modifications may be made without prior
authorization from the Commission. A modification of license
application (FCC Form 319) must be submitted to the Commission within
10 days of commencing program test operations pursuant to Sec. 73.1620.
For applications filed pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section,
the modification of license application must contain an exhibit
demonstrating compliance with the Commission's radiofrequency radiation
guidelines. In addition, applications solely filed pursuant to
paragraphs (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section, where the installation is
located within 3.2 km of an AM tower or is located on an AM tower, an
exhibit demonstrating compliance with Sec. 73.1692 is also required.
(1) Replacement of an antenna with one of the same or different
number of antenna bays, provided that the height of the antenna
radiation center is not more than 2 meters above or 4 meters below the
authorized values. Program test operations at the full authorized ERP
may commence immediately upon installation pursuant to
Sec. 73.1620(a)(1).
(2) Replacement of a transmission line with one of a different type
or length which changes the transmitter operating power (TPO) from the
authorized value, but not the ERP, must be reported in a license
modification application to the Commission.
(3) Changes in the hours of operation of stations authorized
pursuant to time-share agreements in accordance with Sec. 73.872.
Sec. 73.877 Station logs for LPFM stations.
(a) The licensee of each LPFM station must maintain a station log.
Each log entry must include the time and date of observation and the
name of the person making the entry. The following information must be
entered in the station log:
(1) Any extinguishment or malfunction of the antenna structure
obstruction lighting, adjustments, repairs, or replacement to the
lighting system, or related notification to the FAA. See sections 17.48
and 73.49 of this chapter.
(2) Brief explanation of station outages due to equipment
malfunction, servicing, or replacement;
(3) Operations not in accordance with the station license; and
(4) EAS weekly log requirements set forth in Sec. 11.61(a)(1)(v) of
this chapter.
(b) [Reserved]
[[Page 7648]]
Sec. 73.878 Station inspections by FCC; availability to FCC of station
logs and records.
(a) The licensee of a broadcast station shall make the station
available for inspection by representatives of the FCC during the
station's business hours, and at any time it is in operation. In the
course of an inspection or investigation, an FCC representative may
require special equipment or program tests.
(b) Station records and logs shall be made available for inspection
or duplication at the request of the FCC or its representatives. Such
logs or records may be removed from the licensee's possession by an FCC
representative or, upon request, shall be mailed by the licensee to the
FCC by either registered mail, return receipt requested, or certified
mail, return receipt requested. The return receipt shall be retained by
the licensee as part of the station records until such records or logs
are returned to the licensee. A receipt shall be furnished when the
logs or records are removed from the licensee's possession by an FCC
representative and this receipt shall be retained by the licensee as
part of the station records until such records or logs are returned to
the licensee. When the FCC has no further need for such records or
logs, they shall be returned to the licensee. The provisions of this
rule shall apply solely to those station logs and records that are
required to be maintained by the provisions of this part.
(1) Where records or logs are maintained as the official records of
a recognized law enforcement agency and the removal of the records from
the possession of the law enforcement agency will hinder its law
enforcement activities, such records will not be removed pursuant to
this section if the chief of the law enforcement agency promptly
certifies in writing to the FCC that removal of the logs or records
will hinder law enforcement activities of the agency, stating insofar
as feasible the basis for his decision and the date when it can
reasonably be expected that such records will be released to the FCC.
Sec. 73.879 Signal retransmission.
An LPFM licensee may not retransmit, either terrestrially or via
satellite, the signal of a full-power radio broadcast station.
Sec. 73.881 Equal employment opportunities.
General EEO policy. Equal employment opportunity shall be afforded
by all LPFM licensees and permittees to all qualified persons, and no
person shall be discriminated against because of race, color ,
religion, national origin, or sex.
6. Section 73.1001 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 73.1001 Scope.
* * * * *
(b) Rules in part 73 applying exclusively to a particular broadcast
service are contained in the following: AM, subpart A; FM, subpart B;
Noncommercial Educational FM, subpart C; TV, subpart E; and LPFM,
subpart G.
(c) Certain provisions of this subpart apply to International
Broadcast Stations (subpart F, part 73), LPFM (subpart G, part 73), and
Low Power TV, TV Translator and TV Booster Stations (subpart G, part
74) where the rules for those services so provide.
* * * * *
7. Section 73.1620 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 73.1620 Program tests.
(a) Upon the completion of construction of an AM, FM, LPFM, or TV
station in accordance with the terms of the construction permit, the
technical provisions of the application, the rules and regulations and
the applicable engineering standards, program tests may be conducted in
accordance with the following:
* * * * *
(5) Except for permits subject to successive license terms, the
permittee of an LPFM station may begin program tests upon notification
to the FCC in Washington, DC, provided that within 10 days thereafter,
an application for license is filed. Program tests may be conducted by
a licensee subject to mandatory license terms only during the term
specified on such licensee's authorization.
* * * * *
8. Section 73.1660(a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 73.1660 Acceptability of broadcast transmitters.
(a) An AM, FM, LPFM, or TV transmitter shall be verified for
compliance with the requirements of this part following the procedures
described in part 2 of the FCC rules.
* * * * *
9. Section 73.3533 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(8) to read as
follows:
Sec. 73.3533 Application for construction permit or modification of
construction permit.
* * * * *
(a)(8) FCC Form 318, ``Application for Construction Permit for a
Low Power FM Broadcast Station.''
* * * * *
10. Section 73.3536 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(7) to read
as follows:
Sec. 73.3536 Application for license to cover construction permit.
* * * * *
(b)(7) FCC Form 319, ``Application for a Low Power FM Broadcast
Station License.''
* * * * *
11. Section 73.3550(f) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 73.3550 Requirements for new or modified call sign assignments.
* * * * *
(f) Only four-letter call signs (plus LP, FM, or TV, if used) will
be assigned. The four letter call sign for LPFM stations will be
followed by the suffix ``-LP''. However, subject to the provisions of
this section, a call sign of a station may be conformed to a commonly-
owned station holding a three-letter call sign (plus FM, TV, or LP
suffixes, if used).
* * * * *
12. Section 73.3598(a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 73.3598 Period of construction.
(a) Each original construction permit for the construction of a new
TV, AM, FM or International Broadcast; low power TV; TV translator; TV
booster; FM translator; FM booster; or broadcast auxiliary station, or
to make changes in such existing stations, shall specify a period of
three years from the date of issuance of the original construction
permit within which construction shall be completed and application for
license filed. Each original construction permit for the construction
of a new LPFM station shall specify a period of eighteen months from
the date of issuance of the construction permit within which
construction shall be completed and application for license filed.
* * * * *
13. Section 73.3617 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 73.3617 Broadcast information available on the Internet.
The Mass Media Bureau and each of its Divisions provide information
on the Internet regarding broadcast rules and policies, pending and
completed rulemakings, and pending applications. These sites also
include copies of public notices and texts of recent decisions.
[[Page 7649]]
The Mass Media Bureau's address is http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/; the Audio
Services Division address is http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/asd/; the Video
Services Division is located at http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/vsd/; and the
Policy and Rules Division's address is http://www.fcc.gov/mmb/prd/.
Part 74--Experimental Radio, Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and Other
Program Distributional Services
1. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
2. Section 74.432(a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 74.432 Licensing requirements and procedures.
(a) A license for a remote pickup station will be issued to: the
licensee of an AM, FM, noncommercial FM, low power FM, TV,
international broadcast or low power TV station; broadcast network-
entity; or cable network-entity.
* * * * *
3. Section 73.532(a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 74.532 Licensing requirements.
(a) An aural broadcast STL or an aural broadcast intercity relay
station will be licensed only to the licensee or licensees of broadcast
stations, including low power FM stations, other than international
broadcast stations, and for use with broadcast stations owned entirely
by or under common control of the licensee or licensees. An aural
broadcast intercity relay station also will be licensed for use by low
power FM stations, noncommercial educational FM translator stations
assigned to reserved channels (Channels 201-220) and owned and operated
by their primary station, by FM translator stations operating within
the coverage contour of their primary stations, and by FM booster
stations. Aural auxiliary stations licensed to low power FM stations
will be assigned on a secondary basis; i.e., subject to the condition
that no harmful interference is caused to other aural auxiliary
stations assigned to radio broadcast stations. Auxiliary stations
licensed to low power FM stations must accept any interference caused
by stations having primary use of aural auxiliary frequencies.
* * * * *
4. The heading for Sec. 74.1204 and paragraph (a) are revised, and
paragraph (a)(4) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 74.1204 Protection of FM broadcast, FM Translator and LP100
stations.
(a) An application for an FM translator station will not be
accepted for filing if the proposed operation would involve overlap of
predicted field contours with any other authorized commercial or
noncommercial educational FM broadcast stations, FM translators, and
Class D (secondary) noncommercial educational FM stations; or if it
would result in new or increased overlap with an LP100 station, as set
forth below:
* * * * *
(4) LP100 stations (Protected Contour: 1mV/m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interference contour of proposed Protected contour of LP100 LPFM
Frequency separation translator station station
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cochannel 200 kHz................... 0.1 mV/m (40 dBu) 1.1 mV/m (60 dBu)
0.5 mV/m (54 dBu) 1 mV/m (60 dBu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-2718 Filed 2-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P