********************************************************    
                         NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available.

*****************************************************************

                           Before the
               Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554



In the Matter of

Creation of Low
Power Radio Service
)
)
)
)
)
)
)



MM Docket No. 99-25

RM-9208
RM-9242



                        REPORT AND ORDER

   Adopted:  January 20, 2000           Released:  January 27, 2000

By the Commission: Chairman Kennard and Commissioners Ness and Tristani issuing separate statements;
Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth dissenting and issuing a statement; and Commissioner Powell approving in
part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement.

                       Table of Contents

     
     I.                                                     Introduction. . . . . . 2
     II.                                                    Issue Analysis. . . . . . . .3
          A.                                                Goals. . . . . . . 3
          B.                                                Classes of Service . . . . . 7
          1.  LP100 Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
          2.  LP10 Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

          C.                                                Nature of Service and Licensees. . . . . . 15
          1.  Noncommercial Educational Service. . . . . . . . . . .15
          2.  Public Safety and Transportation . . . . . . . . . . .21

          D.                                                Eligibility and Ownership. . . . . . .24
          1.  Cross-Ownership Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
          2.  Requirement That Applicant Be Community-Based. . . . . . . 31
          3.  National Ownership Limits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
          4.  Local Ownership Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
          5.  Attribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
          6.  General Character Qualifications and Unlicensed Broadcasters . . . . . . .51

          E.                                                Technical Rules. . . . . . .56
          1.  Spectrum for Low Power Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
          2.  LPFM Spectrum Rights and Responsibilities. . . . . . .60
          3.  Minimum Distance Separation Requirements . . . . . . .68
          4.  Second and Third Adjacent Channel Protection . . . . .73
          5.  Other Technical Standards and Provisions . . . . . . 105

          F.                                                Application Processing . . . . .122
          1.  Electronic Filing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
          2.  Window Filing Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
          3.  Selection Among Mutually Exclusive Applications. . . . . .134
          4.  License Terms and Renewals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
          5.  Transferability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

          G.                                                Programming and Service Rules. . . . . . .164
          1.  Public Interest Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
          2.  Locally Originated Programming . . . . . . . . . . . 168
          3.  Political Programming Rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
          4.  Station Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
          5.  Operating Hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
          6.  Main Studio Rule, Public File Rule and Ownership Reporting Requirements. . . . . . 183
          7.  Construction Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
          8.  Emergency Alert System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

     III.                                                   Conclusion. . . . . . 198



     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. 
     III. issue analysis
1    Goals
1.     The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we adopted on January 28, 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 Notice, 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.
2.     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 Notice 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 Notice 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.   
3.     Another goal expressed in the Notice was that any new LPFM service specifically include the
voices of community based schools, churches and civic organizations.  In the Notice, 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 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.
4.     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 Notice 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. 
          A.   Classes of Service 
5.     Background.  In the Notice, 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 1000 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. 
6.     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. 
7.     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, including
AFCCE, 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."   
8.     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. 
In fact, the NAB stated that, while the Commission feels that an LP10 station would not result in
significant interference, the sheer number of LP10 stations may result in more interference than the higher-
powered station proposals would create.  Additionally, the NAB cited the Commission's 1978
determination that Class D 10 watt operations result in inefficient spectrum usage.  However, one
broadcaster, WEOK Broadcasting Corporation, noted that "[v]ery low power stations (perhaps one to 10
watts) could operate as useful adjuncts to college campuses," provided there are some restrictions on usage.
   Likewise, not all public interest groups felt that an LP10 service would be a good idea.  For example,
the Civil Rights Organizations stated that LP10 stations should not be authorized because they would be
"hard-to-regulate."
9.     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.
10.    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 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
11.    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.
     1.        LP10 Service
12.    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. 
       A. Nature of Service and Licensees
               1.   Noncommercial Educational Service
13.    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.
14.    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. 
15.    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.  
16.    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.
17.    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.
18.    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 "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. 
     1.        Public Safety and Transportation
19.    Background.  One appropriate use of LPFM stations is use by public safety or transportation
organizations.  Although the Notice did not specifically raise this issue, a number of commenters proposed
it. 
20.    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.  The New York State Thruway Authority (Thruway) argued that low power FM stations
could be used for the benefit of public safety and transportation entities throughout the country to provide
critical real-time information to travelers confronting emergency situations, traffic patterns and accidents. 
The Texas Department of Transportation stated a low power FM service would offer more reliable service
to travelers than does its existing AM Travelers' Information Stations (TIS).
21.    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. 
          A.   Eligibility and Ownership
22.    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 year 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. 
23.    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
24.    Background.  In the Notice, 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.
25.    Comments.  Several commercial broadcasters, educational broadcasters and individuals
propose that cross ownership be allowed.   The NAB opposes restricting current broadcasters from low
power ownership, claiming that consolidation of ownership in fact increases diversity of broadcast formats
because of economic efficiencies.  The NAB further alleges that such a prohibition would preclude low
power stations from realizing efficiencies through joint operations with a full power counterpart.  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.  Metro Detroit Broadcasting Corporation proposes a waiver of multiple ownership provisions for
minority-owned low power stations.
26.    Most commenters, however, oppose cross-ownership of full-service stations and LPFM
stations.  The National Lawyers Guild, for example, asks why the Commission would allow the few
companies who already hold a broadcast license also to hold a low power license when 99.9 percent of the
American people are barred from using the most effective communications media in the nation.  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.  UCC, et al., adds that
not only should such agreements between full power licensees and low power licensees be prohibited, but
also that agreements of a similar nature between two or more low power licensees should be disallowed. 
27.    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.  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
promoting diversity warrants such a strict approach.  
28.    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, as suggested by UCC,
et al.  As noted above, 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.
               1.   Requirement That Applicant Be Community-Based
29.    Background.  In the Notice, 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 Notice 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.
30.    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.  UCC, et al. proposes that a majority of the entity's board
reside in the station's service area.  The Civil Rights Organizations suggest that a majority of the
licensee's board of directors, the head of the board and the CEO be local residents.  Some commenters
propose that applicants should be based within 25 or 50 miles of the new low power station, or within
the station's proposed contour.  Community Broadcasters proposes that a majority of the members of the
governing body of the LPFM licensee be residents within the primary service contour of the proposed
station.  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, discussed below.  Some point out that a residency requirement is incompatible with a five- to ten-
station national ownership cap.
31.    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. 
32.    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. 
33.    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. 
34.    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 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.
               1.   National Ownership Limits
35.    Background.  In the Notice, 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.
36.    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. 
The Civil Rights Organizations "disagree in the strongest terms" with the idea that a low power licensee
could hold more than one license.  UCC, et al., states that the Commission's belief that economies of scale
from national ownership will improve service is especially ill-founded.  It similarly exhorts us to disallow
"agreements" between low power stations.   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.  The NAB does not believe
that a national ownership cap is allowed under the 1996 Act, and believes that common ownership will
improve efficiency in the service.
37.    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.  
38.    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.
39.    In the Notice, 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.
     1.        Local Ownership Limits
40.    Background.  In the Notice, 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.  
41.    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.  The NAB opposes the proposed ban on common local ownership,
saying that common ownership leads to increased efficiencies.  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. 
42.    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 above, 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.
43.    In the Notice 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 terms, does not apply to noncommercial stations.
44.    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. 
     1.        Attribution
45.    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 Notice, we sought comment on what interests or relationships should be attributable in
this regard.
46.    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.  Amherst argues that it should be illegal for a subsidiary, affiliate, agent or
franchisee of any institution holding a broadcast license to acquire an LPFM license. 
47.    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.
48.    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. 
     1.        General Character Qualifications and Unlicensed Broadcasters 
49.    Background.  In the Notice, 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 Notice in the Federal Register.
50.    Comments.  The National Lawyers Guild and the Civil Rights Organizations both argue for
amnesty for unlicensed broadcasters.  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 Notice, saying that it is most fair to the interests of future low power broadcasters and to the public. 
The Alliance for Community Media also supports the Commission's proposed compromise.  Many
commenters believe that anyone who has operated illegally should not be eligible for a license.  NAB
believes that because "pirate" broadcasters operated illegally, they should not be excused or granted
amnesty.  Some object to restricting parties with an interest in a broadcast station from owning an LPFM
station, but allowing "pirates" to own them.
51.    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. 
52.    The most significant specific question that character concerns raise in the context of this
proceeding, as discussed in the Notice, 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 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. 
53.    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 Notice, 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 Notice 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.
          A.   Technical Rules
               1.   Spectrum for Low Power Radio
54.    Background.  In the Notice, 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.
55.    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, NPR, CPB
and 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.  
56.    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.  Likewise, we acknowledge the concerns of CPB and NPR about the current "crowding"
within the reserved band.  However, 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.
57.    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. 
               1.   LPFM Spectrum Rights and Responsibilities
58.    Background.  In the Notice, 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 Notice
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 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. 
59.    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. The ACLU of
Massachusetts believes that all LPFM stations should be primary, but should be willing to accept higher
than normal amounts of interference.  The Community Broadcasters Association supported primary
status for all LPFM stations as a way to open capital markets for these stations.   Some commenters
supported a modified form of primary status for LPFM.  Amherst Alliance supported a status that would
not permit LPFM stations to "bump" other stations, but would also protect LPFM stations from being
"bumped."  Community Broadcasters commented that LPFM stations should be given primary status
with respect to analog stations, but have a secondary status with respect to digital radio stations.  Other
commenters, including some broadcast licensees, supported a secondary status for LPFM stations.  Big
City Radio, Inc., for example, stated that LPFM stations should not be permitted to block the relocation of
full-power stations forced to relocate their transmitter sites.  Mississippi Valley Broadcasters, LLC
commented that LPFM stations should be given the same secondary spectrum priority as FM translator
stations.  According to the Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers, LP100
stations should be secondary and not be permitted to displace FM translator stations.  Aaron Read
commented that Class D FM stations should be secondary to LP100 stations because of their higher power,
but that microradio  stations should be secondary to Class D.  Jeffrey Richman, chief operator of a Class
D station, commented that Class D licensees should not be secondary to LPFM licensees.
60.    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.
61.    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.  Station
separation requirements for these various purposes are described in paragraphs 68-72 and 114 and the
separation distances are presented in the tables in the attached rules.  
62.    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 (see paragraph 113.).  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. 
63.    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. 
64.    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, 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.
65.       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. 
               1.   Minimum Distance Separation Requirements
66.    Background.  The Notice 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 Notice 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.
67.    Comments.  No comments challenge any of the specific values listed in our proposed minimum
distance separation tables.  However, one commenter, Summit American, Inc. (Summit), 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.  The 44 dBu contour is cited by Summit as the "extent of listenable service for the average
listener," based upon the comments filed by USADR, one of the proponents of an in-band-on-channel
digital audio broadcasting (IBOC DAB) system.  In support of the definition of service beyond that
protected by the Commission, Summit cites the Commission's FM translator interference rules which
define interference as affecting an area where there is reception of "a regularly used signal."  Although it
does not calculate distance separations, the North Carolina Association of Broadcasters and the Virginia
Association of Broadcasters (NCAB/VAB) echo Summit's concerns and 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.
68.    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 Notice,
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.  These spacing tables are set forth in the new rules, in Appendix
A.  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.  
69.    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
above, 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 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.
70.    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
attached 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.
               1.   Second and Third Adjacent Channel Protection
71.     Background.  In the Notice 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.
72.    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, USA
Digital Radio Partners, L.P. (USADR), 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. 

73.    Comments.  Three technical studies of FM receivers were filed in response to the Notice. 
These studies were: 1) FM Interference Tests, Laboratory Test Report, Thomas B. Keller, Robert B.
McCutheon, Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA), 1999, conducted under the
auspices of National Public Radio (NPR), CEMA and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)
(CEMA study); 2) Technical Studies and Reports filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB
study); and 3) Receiver Evaluation Project conducted by Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP for the National
Lawyers' Guild, Committee on Democratic Communications (NLG study).  The Commission's Office of
Engineering and Technology also completed a study of FM receivers that was placed in the record of the
proceeding (OET study).  In addition, NAB and CEMA filed supplementary technical information in
their reply comments and a Technical Analysis of the Low Power FM Service by Theodore S. Rappaport
(August 26, 1999) was submitted by the Media Access Project as part of its replies (Rappaport study).  
74.    CEMA Study and Comments.  CEMA states that the purpose of its study is to document the
sensitivity of consumer FM receivers to interference from other FM band signals.  CEMA tested 16
consumer receivers, including 5 automobile radios, 5 "Home Hi Fi" tuners or receivers, 3 portable stereo
systems, 2 portable radios and one "Walkman" radio.  These receivers were tested under a number of
conditions including co-channel, and 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd- adjacent channel interference.  CEMA asserts that
its tests indicate that the FCC's proposal to eliminate 2nd- and 3rd- adjacent channel protections could result
in significant interference to current and future FM service and threaten the deployment of future digital
audio radio services.  It therefore recommends that the 2nd- and 3rd -adjacent channel (and intermediate-
frequency related) protections be maintained.  
75.    CEMA's test results are as follows: 
  ·       The current FCC co-channel desired to undesired (D/U) signal protection ratio of 20 dB results in an
  average audio signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio of 24 dB.  To achieve what CEMA regards as the desired
  target audio quality level, i.e., 45 dB, an additional 22 dB of protection is needed.
  ·       The current FCC 1st-adjacent channel protection ratio of 6 dB results in an average S/N ratio of 36 dB. 
  To achieve the 45 dB S/N level, an additional 11 dB of protection is needed.  Tests also show potential
  analog-to-digital interference.  
  ·       The current 2nd-adjacent channel protection ratio of -40 dB results in an average S/N of 28 dB, while at
  a D/U ratio of  30 dB the average S/N ratio is 35 dB.
  ·       The current 3rd-adjacent channel protection ratio of -40 dB results in an average S/N of 36 dB.  Based
  on this finding, CEMA argues that the 3rd-adjacent protection should be maintained.
  ·       Intermodulation tests show that the current intermediate frequency (IF) protection requirements are
  required to avoid both IF interference and local oscillator interference.  
6.     NAB Study and Reply Comments.  As part of its comments, NAB submitted a technical study
of FM receivers.  In addition, it provided extensive tabular and geographical data illustrating what it
believed would be the impact of various LPFM operations on existing FM broadcast service.  NAB states
that the receiver study was conducted to determine the susceptibility of modern FM receivers to co- and
adjacent-channel signals and to determine the potential for interference to existing FM stations should a
new low power FM service be authorized.  NAB tested a total of 28 FM radios.  This sample included 8
automobile, 5 component, 5 portable, 5 personal and 5 clock radios.  In its reply, NAB argues that its
sample is the only one of those used in the four studies that fairly represented all receiver categories.  
7.     In conducting its study, NAB chose a 50 dB audio S/N ratio as its performance measure. It
considered interference to occur when the audio S/N ratio was degraded to this level.  For radios that could
not attain a 50 dB audio S/N ratio in the absence of an interfering signal, interference was judged to occur
when the audio S/N ratio was degraded by a factor of 5 dB.  NAB's test results demonstrate that receivers
are most sensitive to co-channel interference and are progressively less sensitive to interference as the
spacing between the desired and undesired frequencies increases.  Based on its performance measure, NAB
indicates that 15 to 22 of the 28 receivers in its sample would experience interference from signals on 3rd-
adjacent channels at the current -40 dB D/U protection ratio.  NAB also indicates that 22 to 23 receivers
in its sample would experience interference from signals on 2nd-adjacent channels. NAB therefore concludes
that FM receivers generally do not perform up to the current FCC interference standards and that the
Commission's assumptions that these restrictions could be eliminated for LPFM stations are incorrect.
8.     In its reply comments, NAB also criticizes the receiver samples used in the other technical
studies.  It argues that only its study tested five different categories of receivers and a full price range of
receivers in all categories.  It also argues that OET and CEMA did not test clock radios and OET did not
test personal radios, while CEMA only included one personal radio in its sample.  NAB further asserts that
while NLG tested all categories, its sample was too small to derive any general conclusions.  NAB notes
that all of the studies agree that automobile radios and, in some cases, component receivers, tend to be more
effective at rejecting adjacent channel interference than clock, personal and portable radios.  However,
NAB asserts that all of the studies confirm that modern FM receivers do not perform as well as the existing
FCC protection criteria for 2nd- and 3rd-adjacent channel interference assume.
9.     NLG Study.  The NLG study examined a sample of 10 consumer FM radios.  These radios
were grouped in three broad categories as follows: 1) 3 higher priced radios (generally above $150); 5
lower priced radios ($20 to $150); and 3) 2 factory installed car radios.  Based on its test results, NLG
observed that car radios and higher priced radios performed "far better than one would predict based on the
FCC interference ratios" and that "substantial signal strengths were required to cause 2nd, 3rd, and 4th
adjacent channel interference.  It also observed that the performance of lower priced radios tended to
"straddle" the FCC interference protection standards.  
10.    NLG indicated that it was difficult to establish a definition of unacceptable interference, noting
that its tests demonstrated that even the best receivers showed measurable, often imperceptible, increases in
distortion in the presence of extremely low level undesired signals.  It stated while the traditional practice is
to establish a standard based on an absolute level of noise or distortion, such as a 3% increase in distortion
or a S/N ratio of 30 dB, actual FM listening conditions are dependent on such variables as reception
conditions, baseline radio performance without interference, and the various sounds and effects that
interference can create.  NLG stated that these variables make it difficult to scientifically derive a universal
measure of unacceptable interference.  NLG indicated that in testing radios, it found that the distortion and
noise performance of each radio exhibited a "transition zone" where the radio would suddenly fail to
receive the desired signal.  It used these transition zones to make comparisons between radios, between
forms of undesired signal modulation, and between interference from signals on adjacent channels.
11.    The NLG study's findings are as follows: 
  ·       More aggressive modulation of the undesired signal did not cause a significant increase in interference
  and that this was especially true for signals on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th adjacent channels.  Less costly radios
  were more susceptible to modulation induced interference than more costly radios.
  ·       The response of all radios tested for co-channel and first adjacent channel interference matched or
  exceeded the FCC interference protection ratios.
  ·       Higher priced radios tend to withstand 2nd-adjacent channel interference better than lower priced radios. 
  Higher priced radios and car radios withstood undesired signal levels higher than the FCC interference
  protection standards.  The poorest performing radios were susceptible to 2nd-adjacent channel undesired
  signal levels that were as much as 50 dB lower than the levels that affected the best performers.
  ·       3rd-adjacent channel interference was slightly less challenging to most radios than 2nd- adjacent channel
  interference.  Higher priced radios and car radios tended to fare better than lower priced radios.
5.     OET Study.  The OET study examined four broad categories of FM receivers:  1) small,
inexpensive receivers with integral antenna; 2) small, moderate-cost receivers with antenna connection; 3)
dash-mount automobile receivers; and 4) moderately expensive audio component receivers.  In the OET
study, 21 FM receivers were tested.  These included 5 small, moderate-cost receivers with antenna
connections (portable and "boom-box" receivers), 7 automobile receivers, and 9 moderately expensive
audio component receivers ("component" or home stereo type receivers).  No inexpensive receivers with
integral antennas were selected for the test sample because of the difficulty of providing test signals at
accurately controlled levels to this type of device.  The OET study found that nearly all the receivers in
the sample appear to meet or exceed the current 40 dB 2nd-adjacent channel protection requirement and to
exceed the 3rd-adjacent channel protection by a wide margin.  The OET study indicated that there was
about an 8-10 dB improvement in overall performance with regard to interference immunity with regard to
3rd-adjacent channel signals as compared to 2nd-adjacent channel signals.  The study also investigated the
effect of reducing the maximum FM deviation on the interfering signal and found that a small improvement
in 2nd- and 3rd-adjacent channel interference immunity can be expected for most receivers.
6.     Rappaport Study.  The Rappaport study analyzes the other research, and concludes that
LPFM will not cause unacceptable levels of service to existing FM broadcast stations.  Rappaport indicates
that the submitted technical studies support elimination of 2nd- and 3rd-adjacent channel protection for low
power radio and that the small additional interference that would be induced by LPFM is miniscule in
comparison to the already existing FM interference levels.  Rappaport also asserts that there was a clear
bias in some of the technical studies to overstate potential LPFM interference.  He indicates, for example,
that NAB omitted automobile radios (which make up over 20% of the radios sold and over 44% of the
radios listened to by the public) from its LPFM impact study and made up a "worst-case" radio based on
measurements from different radios.  Spectrum studies are also included that, according to Rappaport,
indicate hundreds of LPFM stations may be deployed at power levels between one and 100 watts and
serving tens of millions of listeners while having minimal interference impact on tens of thousands of
listeners at most.
7.     Rappaport states that NAB's and CEMA's tests appear to be designed to show how poorly
FM receivers perform compared with the FCC interference protection ratios.  He argues that these
protection ratios were developed to ensure that stations were not built too close together, thereby providing
acceptable reception by early generation of radios.  He argues that today's receivers drift less, have more
reproducible electrical characteristics and better detection capabilities.  He states that the fact that modern
receivers do not meet the FCC protection ratios while still providing good consumer performance
demonstrates that the protection ratios are overly stringent.  Rappaport argues that FM receiver
performance is based on actual real world environment, consumer expectations, and design/cost tradeoffs,
and has nothing to do with how the FCC assigns station licenses.  Rappaport argues that studies show
that consumers are pleased with FM radios that have much less protection immunity than assumed by the
FCC protection guidelines, and thus LPFM can be easily implemented since LPFM will introduce only a
small amount of additional interference.   
8.     Rappaport notes that the FCC regulations require that out-of-band emissions on the 1st-
adjacent channels be at least 25 dB below the main carrier but that in practice they are 30 dB below this
level.  He therefore suggests that if LPFM transmitters are certified for proper operation as suggested, there
is no reason to expect interference except for blanketing conditions.  
9.     Rappaport indicates that the interference potential of LPFM stations is as follows:

LPFM
Power
(Watts)
Interference
Radius (mi.) 
Interference 
Area (sq. mi.)
Service Radius
(mi.)
Service Area
(sq. mi.)


1
0.04
0.01
1.1
4.0


10
0.14
0.06
2.0
12.1


100
0.44
0.60
3.5
38.5


10.    Rappaport also argues that several conditions must exist for interference to occur, such as: the
LPFM station must be at the coverage fringe of the incumbent station; the listener only wishes to listen to a
station 2 or 3 channels above or below the LPFM station; and the listener is using a poor performing radio
like a clock radio.  However, even in these circumstances, Rappaport asserts that, in many instances, the
listener may be able to eliminate the interference by adjusting the position of the clock radio or boom box
for good reception.  Rappaport further argues that the percentage of people experiencing interference from
a low power station is much less (0.24% to 1.56%) than the people that would be served by a low power
station.  
11.    Rappaport also criticizes several aspects of the receiver studies by NAB and CEMA.  For
example, he indicates that despite CEMA's claims, its receiver sample is not representative of the
population of receivers in use.  He also states that neither NAB or CEMA weighted their results to take into
account the high proportion of listening (44%) that occurs in vehicles and that this failure over-emphasized
the poor performance of certain other radios.  Rappaport also does not believe that the quality criteria
selected were appropriate.  He notes that NAB chose a quality threshold that was impossible for the
majority of its receivers to meet.  He states that this suggests either the performance metric was unrealistic,
or that there was an intentional effort to select inferior radios.  He argues that choosing a fixed quality
threshold creates testing and sampling problems.  Rappaport argues that in an academic setting, the design
of NAB's and CEMA's tests would be considered flawed and the results from such tests would be
disregarded.  Rappaport also states that none of the four tests gives a complete picture of receiver
performance because they all used only a limited range of desired input signals.  
12.    He indicates that while it is difficult to compare the different receiver studies, they demonstrate
that car radios are much more robust to interference and are typically designed to meet the FCC 2nd- and
3rd- adjacent protection ratio (-40 dB D/U ratio).  He indicates that other radios do not require this level of
protection because, unlike automobile radios, they do not experience severe fading nor do they move
rapidly towards an interfering signal.  
13.    Rappaport also criticizes NAB's mapping study.  He states that this study seriously over-
counted the number of people potentially affected by LPFM interference by counting affected people
multiple times, using the worst possible receiver performance, inventing a "worst radio," and omitting
interference from incumbent FM stations.  Finally, Rappaport indicates that IBOC proponents' concerns
about 2nd-adjacent channel operation by LPFM are unwarranted.  
14.    Decision.  We find that the record in this proceeding thus far, 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.  As
discussed below, we believe that 100-watt 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.
15.    In considering the issues relating to potential interference from LPFM operation, we first
observe that all of the technical studies before us have certain limitations that make direct comparison of
the study results difficult.  Most significantly, all of the studies used different measures to determine when
interference occurs and the quality of service to be protected.  This fact explains somewhat the differences
in the conclusions drawn by the various studies.  As NAB indicates, the significant differences among the
studies were not in the measurements or in the performance of the radio receivers tested, but rather in the
criteria used to decide whether the effects of an interfering signal caused harm to the desired signal.  We
generally concur with this assessment.   
16.    Both CEMA and NAB used an audio signal-to-noise criterion to define acceptable FM
service.  CEMA used a S/N value of 45 dB based on an earlier study by NPR.  NAB chose a 50 dB S/N
criteria.  NAB states that an audio S/N of 50 dB is necessary for interference-free reception.   NAB
indicates that an estimate of the appropriate S/N can be made from the FCC co-channel desired-to-
undesired (D/U) interference ratio of 20 dB.  It states that the FCC co-channel protection ratio of 20 dB
should produce an audio S/N ratio of approximately 50 dB for monophonic reception.  
17.    We do not find the audio S/N criteria suggested by either CEMA or NAB to be appropriate
interference criteria for today's FM radio service.  FM radio stations provide stereophonic not monophonic
service.  While a 20 dB D/U ratio yields a monophonic audio S/N of about 50 dB, according to an earlier
study by NAB, for stereophonic transmissions, the 20 dB protection ratio yields an audio S/N of only
about 30 dB.  While NAB and CEMA may desire that FM radio service be protected to higher levels of
service, based on NAB's earlier study and the results of the technical studies before us herein, we do not
believe that the existing interference protection standards, e.g., the 20 dB co-channel interference
requirement, generally provides for protection to such levels.
18.    We also believe that accounting for both stereo performance and the FCC's current
interference protection standards explains why many of the FM receivers tested did not meet the criteria
chosen by CEMA and NAB, or did exhibit performance degradation higher than NAB's and CEMA's
expectations.  For example, the majority of receivers (17 of 28) chosen by NAB did not meet its 50 dB S/N
criteria with no interference present and with the "strongest" desired signal.  Similarly, CEMA reports
that none of its sample receivers "came near meeting the target S/N" of 45 dB at the FCC's co-channel
standard of 20 dB.  NLG, in its study, states that "receiver performance data show that all receivers
produce some measurable increase in noise at undesired signal levels below the FCC ratio reference levels." 
We therefore fail to see how 50 or 45 dB can be an appropriate measure when most radios do not perform
at this level, even in the absence of any interference as was the case in NAB's tests.  We have no reason to
find that the vast majority of current FM receivers do not provide satisfactory service to the public and
therefore believe that a lower value or measure of acceptable performance would be more appropriate for
interference purposes.  We believe that this is especially the case if we are to consider all categories of FM
receivers, including lower cost models, such as clock, portable and personal units, as suggested by some of
the commenting parties. 
19.    Another limitation of the studies was the relatively limited sample of FM receivers examined. 
The relatively small samples examined in each of the studies makes it difficult to draw statistical inferences
with regard to the general population of FM receivers.  However, the studies do clearly indicate that current
FM radios exhibit a wide range of performance with regard to audio reception quality and interference
rejection.  While a 50 dB, 45 dB, or even 40 dB reception quality level, as suggested by Rappaport, may be
expected for certain types of radios, such as automobile radios and home stereos, clearly from the data
presented these levels of performance are not the norm for other types of radios, such as portable, personal
and clock radios.  In addition, all of the studies found that automobile radios and home stereo/component
receivers tend to be more effective at rejecting adjacent channel interference than clock, personal and
portable radios.  Based on our examination of the studies, we find that automobile radios and home
stereo/component receivers generally are able to provide -40 dB rejection of 3rd-adjacent channel signals
and therefore generally will provide acceptable service in the absence of 3rd-adjacent channel protection.
We also recognize that some poorer quality receivers may experience some additional interference as a
result of eliminating the 3rd-adjacent channel protection for LPFM stations.  We note, however, that these
classes of radio may also experience some degree of interference from co- and 1st-adjacent channel stations
operating within the existing protection requirements.  We also believe that consumers generally understand
that there are performance differences among the classes of radios and that they accept the fact that lower
cost radios may provide more limited service capabilities, as suggested by Rappaport.  We therefore believe
that our decisions with regard to LPFM service should not be constrained solely by the performance
limitations of lower cost radios any more than we should use those radios to redefine existing FM radio
service.  In this regard, we believe that good engineering practice suggests that evaluations of the potential
impact of new interference from low power FM stations should not be based on either the worst or best
performing radios.
20.    The NAB study generally bases its analyses on median receiver performance, and the CEMA
study generally uses average performance to describe its results.  In addition, since the studies use different
measures of when interference occurs, it is difficult to directly compare the test results.  Nonetheless, we
believe that there is sufficient consistency in the study results to support some decisions in this matter,
particularly with regard to the need for 3rd-adjacent channel protection. 
21.    The OET and NLG studies generally conclude that FM receivers provide for adequate
rejection of interference on 2nd- and 3rd-adjacent channels.  The OET study, for example, finds that nearly
all receivers in its sample appear to meet or exceed the 2nd -adjacent channel protection and exceed the 3rd-
adjacent channel protection criteria by a substantial margin, i.e., exceed the -40 dB criteria by 8 to 10
dB.  On the other hand, CEMA and NAB argue that their studies show that these adjacent channel
protections should be retained.  A careful review of CEMA's results, however, shows that CEMA's median
receiver provides about -40 dB of rejection of 3rd-adjacent channel interference and that the average 3rd -
adjacent channel performance is about 3 to 7 dB better than 2nd-adjacent channel performance for its
sample.  Similarly, while we question the validity of NAB's interference criteria, its test results also
show 3rd-adjacent channel performance to be substantially better than 2nd-adjacent (i.e., 8 to 10 dB) -- the
same margin of improvement as found in the OET study.    
22.    We also find that the area in which any additional interference would be likely to occur from
an LPFM station operating on a 3rd-adjacent channel at maximum facilities of 100 watts and antenna height
of 30 meters above average terrain would be very small.  For example, even using NAB's median receiver
performance test results for its three "worst" FM radio categories, i.e., clock, personal and portable, we
find that the area where such receivers could potentially experience degradation from interference is small,
generally 1 km or less from an LPFM antenna site.  This interference analysis is shown in the following
table:
23.    LPFM Potential Interference Radius

Receiver
Category
Desired Signal Level



-45 dBm
-55 dBm
-65 dBm


Clock
0.3 km
0.7  km
2.1 km


Portable
1.0 km
0.9 km
1.0 km


Personal
0.4 km
0.5 km
0.5 km


24.    Further, we believe that this analysis provides a conservative estimate of actual interference
potential of LPFM given NAB's performance criteria and the fact that NAB's sample included some of the
poorer performing radios among the four studies.  In addition, as pointed out by Rappaport and others,
whether interference in fact occurs to FM listening is dependent on a number of factors, besides the
performance of the FM receiver.  These include, among other things, the actual reception conditions, such
as the location and position of the radio, the frequency and location of both the desired and undesired
stations, and the type of program material being transmitted and received.  CEMA notes, for example, that
when the desired signal is modulated with rock music the interference was masked in its 2nd- and 3rd-
adjacent channel subjective tests. 
25.    Accordingly, we find that 100-watt LPFM stations operating on 3rd-adjacent channels will not
result in significant new interference to the service of existing FM stations.  Furthermore, we find that any
small amount of interference that may occur in individual cases would be outweighed by the benefits of
new low power FM service.  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.
               1.   Other Technical Standards and Provisions
26.    Background.  In the Notice, 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 appendix. 
27.    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, the Arkansas Broadcasters
Association, believes we should impose strict maximum height restrictions on LPFM stations since, due to
the nature of the Commission's F(50,10) interference prediction curves, equivalent 1 mV/m (60 dBu)
reference contours do not always guarantee proportionally sized interfering contours.  Although
Arkansas Broadcasters is correct in this regard, we are not persuaded that this is of sufficient magnitude to
warrant strict height restrictions on LPFM stations.  Rather, 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.  
28.    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.
29.    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.  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.  
30.    Transmission standards.  The Notice 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.         
31.    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. 
32.    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.  
33.    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 above.
34.     Blanketing Interference.  For one year after the commencement of transmissions with new or
modified facilities, all FM stations are required to take remedial action to resolve blanketing interference
complaints occurring within the immediate vicinity of the antenna site.  A station's specific blanketing
interference radius is defined by our rules.  The blanketing contour for an LP100 station would extend
approximately 125 meters from the transmitter site and a 10-watt LP10 blanketing contour would extend
39 meters.  Thus, the blanketing area of either type of station is very small.  We conclude that LPFM
stations should be required to resolve blanketing interference complaints in the same manner applicable to
full power stations.  Although the potential for blanketing interference from LPFM stations may be quite
limited, affected parties are entitled to relief from such interference caused by a new source of radiation,
whether it is a full-power commercial station or a new low power community broadcaster.  Accordingly,
we will apply the requirements in   73.318 to all LPFM stations. 
35.    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 table to protect TV Channel 6 stations.  The values given in
the table utilize the protection ratios of  73.525 and worst case facilities for the TV Channel 6 and the
LP10 and LP100 stations.  On this basis, we do not anticipate that interference will occur.  However, we
will require LPFM applicants to correct any complaints of interference caused to Channel 6 reception in
accordance with our blanketing interference requirements (as are Channel 6 complaints regarding full
service stations).  In most cases, this will require the installation of simple filters on affected television sets. 
LPFM applicants will not be required to coordinate their proposals with any potentially affected Channel 6
television station.
36.    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 Order should
afford additional protection to subcarrier reception than was proposed in the Notice.
37.    Transmitter Certification.  In the Notice, 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 Notice. 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.
38.    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 turn