FCC FACT SHEET


On January 20, 2000, the FCC adopted rules creating a new, low power FM radio (LPFM) service.

The new LPFM service will consist of two classes of LPFM radio stations with maximum power levels of 10 watts and
100 watts. The 10 watt stations would reach an area with a radius of between one and two miles, the 100 watt stations
would reach an area with a radius of approximately three and a half miles.

These LPFM stations would operate throughout the FM band. The stations will be required to protect existing stations
on the same (co-channel) channel, the next (first adjacent channel) channel, and the channel two channels away (second
adjacent channel). In a change from general practice, the new stations will not be required to protect stations three
channels away (third adjacent channel). For example, under rules applicable to existing full power stations where there is
a station on 93.5, there is currently no station in the same geographic area on 93.7 (the first adjacent channel), 93.9 (the
second adjacent channel) or 94.1 (the third adjacent channel). This new spacing criteria would allow a new, LPFM
station to be licensed on the third adjacent channel, or 94.1.

FCC engineers have conducted extensive testing of these protection standards and found that under these new
standards, every radio tested exceeded FCC interference criteria. FCC engineers have concluded that these protection
standards will not produce unacceptable levels of interference with existing FM stations.

The new LPFM service will be exclusively noncommercial, there will be no commercial LPFM stations. In addition,
current broadcast licensees or parties with interests in other media – cable or newspapers - will not be eligible for LPFM
stations.

LPFM stations will be licensed exclusively to local entities for the first two years of license availability. Later, however,
non-local entities will be eligible for licenses. Each licensee may own only one station in any given community, however,
eventually a licensee may own up to ten stations nationwide.

Licensees will be subject to the same character qualifications as are currently applied to full power licensees.
Unauthorized broadcasters will be disqualified unless they certify that they ceased operations when notified of their
violation of FCC rules or by February 26, 1999.

If mutually exclusive applications are received for LPFM stations in a given city, mutual exclusivity will be resolved
through the award of points for established local presence, proposed hours of service, or locally originated programming.
The point system would encourage mutually exclusive applicants to share their stations with other applicants.

HERE'S THE ENTIRE TEXT OF THE NEW LPFM RULES

Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-19





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




A. Goals
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. (See footnote 1) 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
A. Goals
4. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we adopted on January 28, 1999 (See footnote 2) responded to petitions for rule
making and related comments indicating substantial interest in, and public support for, increased citizens' access to the
airwaves. (See footnote 3) 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, (See
footnote 4) students, (See footnote 5) labor unions, (See footnote 6) community organizations and activists, (See footnote 7)
musicians, (See footnote 8) 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.
5. 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. (See footnote 9) 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. (See footnote 10) 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. (See footnote 11) 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.
6. 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. (See footnote 12) 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). (See footnote 13) 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.
7. 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. (See footnote 14) 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 3 rd-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
8. 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.
9. 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. (See footnote 15) 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. (See footnote 16)
10. 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. (See footnote 17) 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.” (See footnote 18)
11. 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. (See footnote
19) 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. (See footnote 20) 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. (See footnote
21) 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. (See footnote 22)
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.” (See footnote 23)
12. 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.
13. 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
14. LP100 stations will be authorized to operate with maximum facilities equivalent to 100 watts ERP at 30 meters (100 feet)
HAAT (See footnote 24) 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
15. 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
16. 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. (See footnote 25)
17. 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, (See footnote
26) and argued that noncommercial radio is the best way to serve local communities. (See footnote 27) Other commenters,
however, argued that low-power FM licensees should be available to both noncommercial and commercial licensees. (See
footnote 28)
18. 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. (See footnote 29) 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 . (See footnote 30) 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. (See footnote 31)
19. 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. (See footnote 32) 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. (See footnote 33)
20. 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.
(See footnote 34)
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.” (See footnote 35) 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. (See footnote 36) 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. (See footnote 37)
21. 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.” (See
footnote 38) We have also stated that “in order to qualify as an educational station, it is not necessary that the proposed
programming be exclusively educational.” (See footnote 39) 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. (See footnote 40)
1. Public Safety and Transportation
22. 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.
23. 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. (See footnote 41) 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). (See footnote 42)
24. 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
25. 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.
26. Throughout this discussion we use the term “community” in a manner different from our traditional use of the term. (See
footnote 43) 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. (See footnote 44)
1. Cross-Ownership Restrictions
27. 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.
28. Comments. Several commercial broadcasters, educational broadcasters and individuals propose that cross ownership be
allowed. (See footnote 45) 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. (See footnote 46)
The NAB further alleges that such a prohibition would preclude low power stations from realizing efficiencies through joint
operations with a full power counterpart. (See footnote 47) 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. (See footnote 48) Others propose that full service station owners not be barred, so long as the LPFM station
is in another market. (See footnote 49) Metro Detroit Broadcasting Corporation proposes a waiver of multiple ownership
provisions for minority-owned low power stations. (See footnote 50)
29. Most commenters, however, oppose cross-ownership of full-service stations and LPFM stations. (See footnote 51) 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. (See footnote 52) 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. (See footnote 53)
30. Decision. We will prohibit common ownership of LPFM and any other broadcast station, including translators and low
power television stations, as well as other media subject to our ownership rules. (See footnote 54) 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.
31. 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. (See footnote 55) 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
32. 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.
33. Comments. Most commenters support a requirement that LPFM licensees be locally based. (See footnote 56) 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. (See footnote 57) 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. (See footnote 58) Some commenters propose that applicants should be based within 25 (See footnote 59) or 50
miles (See footnote 60) of the new low power station, or within the station’s proposed contour. (See footnote 61) 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. (See footnote 62) 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, (See footnote 63) discussed below. Some point out that a residency requirement is incompatible with a
five- to ten-station national ownership cap. (See footnote 64)
34. 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. (See footnote 65) 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.
35. 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, (See footnote 66) 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. (See footnote 67)
36. 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. (See footnote 68)
37. 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
38. 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.
39. 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. (See footnote 69) The Civil Rights Organizations “disagree
in the strongest terms” with the idea that a low power licensee could hold more than one license. (See footnote 70) UCC, et al.,
states that the Commission’s belief that economies of scale from national ownership will improve service is especially
ill-founded. (See footnote 71) It similarly exhorts us to disallow “agreements” between low power stations. (See footnote 72)
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. (See footnote 73) Several commenters agree with the Commission’s
suggested range of five to ten stations, nationally. (See footnote 74) 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. (See footnote 75)
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. In the Notice, we tentatively concluded that Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act) (See
footnote 76) 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. (See footnote 77)
1. Local Ownership Limits
43. 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.

44. Comments. Many commenters agree strongly with the Commission’s proposal that LPFM ownership should be limited to
one station per community. (See footnote 78) 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. (See footnote 79) The NAB opposes the
proposed ban on common local ownership, saying that common ownership leads to increased efficiencies. (See footnote 80) 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. (See footnote 81)
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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
48. 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.
49. 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. (See
footnote 82) 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. (See footnote 83) 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. (See footnote
84)
50. 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. (See footnote 85) 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, (See footnote 86) 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. (See footnote 87) 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. (See footnote 88) 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.
51. 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
52. 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.
53. Comments. The National Lawyers Guild and the Civil Rights Organizations both argue for amnesty for unlicensed
broadcasters. (See footnote 89) Many individuals insist that without radio “pirates,” LPFM would not have been created. (See
footnote 90) 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. (See footnote 91) The Alliance for Community Media
also supports the Commission’s proposed compromise. (See footnote 92) 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. (See footnote 93) Some object to restricting parties with an interest in a broadcast
station from owning an LPFM station, but allowing “pirates” to own them. (See footnote 94)
54. 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. (See footnote 95) No commenter showed a reason to distinguish between full and low
power broadcasters on this basis, and we do not believe one exists.
55. 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,” (See footnote 96) 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.
56. Contrary to some commenters’ arguments, this rule does not unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment rights of
unlicensed broadcasters. (See footnote 97) 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
57. 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.
58. Comments. No commenters specifically supported the allocation of new spectrum for the proposed service. (See footnote
98) 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. (See footnote 99) 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. (See footnote 100) At the same time, other commenters expressed the desire to allow NCE low power stations
throughout the FM band. (See footnote 101)
59. 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. (See footnote 102) 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.
60. 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. (See footnote 103) 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. (See footnote 104)
1. LPFM Spectrum Rights and Responsibilities
61. 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.
62. 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. (See footnote 105) The ACLU of Massachusetts believes that all LPFM stations should be primary, but
should be willing to accept higher than normal amounts of interference. (See footnote 106) The Community Broadcasters
Association supported primary status for all LPFM stations as a way to open capital markets for these stations. (See footnote
107) 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.” (See
footnote 108) 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. (See footnote 109) Other commenters, including some
broadcast licensees, supported a secondary status for LPFM stations. (See footnote 110) 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. (See footnote 111) Mississippi Valley Broadcasters, LLC commented that LPFM stations should be given the
same secondary spectrum priority as FM translator stations. (See footnote 112) According to the Association of Federal
Communications Consulting Engineers, LP100 stations should be secondary and not be permitted to displace FM translator
stations. (See footnote 113) 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. (See footnote 114) Jeffrey Richman, chief
operator of a Class D station, commented that Class D licensees should not be secondary to LPFM licensees. (See footnote
115)
63. 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.
64. 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. (See footnote 116) 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.
65. 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. (See footnote 117) 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.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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
69. 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.
70. 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. (See footnote 118) ” 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. (See footnote 119) 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. (See footnote 120)
71. 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. (See footnote 121) 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. (See footnote 122) 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. (See footnote 123) 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.
72. 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.
73. 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. (See footnote 124) 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
74. 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. (See footnote 125) We stated our belief that a strong case could be made
for not requiring 3 rd-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.
(See footnote 126) 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. (See footnote 127)
75. With regard to 2 nd- 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. (See footnote 128) We sought comment on the state of
receiver technology and the ability of receivers to operate satisfactorily in the absence of 2 nd-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. (See
footnote 129)
76. 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). (See footnote 130) 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). (See footnote 131) 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).
77. 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.
78. 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. (See footnote 132)
The current FCC 1 st-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. (See footnote 133)
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. (See footnote 134) NAB also indicates that 22 to 23 receivers in its sample would
experience interference from signals on 2 nd-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. (See footnote 135) 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 2 nd- 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. (See footnote 136) 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. (See footnote 137)
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 2 nd, 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. (See footnote 138) The OET study found that nearly all the receivers in the sample appear to meet or exceed the current
40 dB 2 nd-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 (See footnote 139) 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 2 nd- 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. (See footnote 140)
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. (See footnote 141) 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 1 st-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. (See
footnote 142)
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. (See footnote 143) 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 2 nd- 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. (See footnote 144) Finally,
Rappaport indicates that IBOC proponents’ concerns about 2 nd-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. (See footnote 145)
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. (See footnote 146) 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. (See footnote
147) We generally concur with this assessment.
16. Both CEMA and NAB used an audio signal-to-noise criterion to define acceptable FM service. (See footnote 148) 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. (See footnote 149) 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.
(See footnote 150)
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. (See footnote 151) 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. (See
footnote 152) 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. (See footnote 153) 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. (See footnote 154) 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 3 rd-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. (See footnote 155) The OET study, for example, finds that nearly all receivers in its sample appear
to meet or exceed the 2 nd -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. (See footnote 156) 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 3 rd-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. (See footnote 157) Similarly, while we question the validity of NAB’s interference criteria, its test results also show 3
rd-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. (See footnote 158)
22. We also find that the area in which any additional interference would be likely to occur from an LPFM station operating on
a 3 rd-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 (See footnote 159)

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. (See footnote 160) 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 2 nd- and 3rd-adjacent channel subjective
tests. (See footnote 161)
25. Accordingly, we find that 100-watt LPFM stations operating on 3 rd-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. (See footnote 162) 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. (See footnote 163) 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. (See footnote 164)
28. We recognize that computing a station’s HAAT requires access to terrain database and numerous calculations. (See
footnote 165) 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. (See footnote 166) 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. (See footnote 167)
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. (See footnote 168)
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. (See footnote 169)
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 expensi