WPC 2BJZCourier3|j?x6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL)HPLA4MP0.PRSx  @\9aX@ X-  @-  -@X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:iJheader;Ax 4 <D  #FxX  Pg9CXP# reference<;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1=&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2P?^L@OyMA NBOheading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!@!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentBiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#2RCrPD:QErQF>Ra2AgendaCa1AgendaAgenda ItemsD7D yP ) I. a3AgendaEHeadingChapter HeadingFJ d  ) I. ׃  2UG$SHSIdXTJTRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersG>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingH0\ E A.  HIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddI+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateJ X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟ2.ZKVL1VM1WN1XDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offK@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5L 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   LEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Mf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11NL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   2\O1`ZPn[Q[Rd\LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14O 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentPK\ * ăBLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedQN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeRB*d. 2bSj]T]UE_V-`HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and UnderscoredS V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsTu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   INVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math InvoiceU ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatVD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   2fW8CbX8{cYdZXTfINVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math InvoiceW:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math MacroXz 4p, $0$00INVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math InvoiceY+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleZ2Jh[[f\[9g][g^[gSMALLSmall Typestyle[FINEFine Typestyle\LARGELarge Typestyle]EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle^2Rk_[|h`haXZjbjVERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle_ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header`+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   1adfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginsb$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO 2 sckd$lelqforStyle 12Dutch Italics 11.5c$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIdJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabse )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsfDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  2ug=sh|siEtjtStyle 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontg4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5h$ )^ `> XifQ Style 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointi$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5j$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO 2jkulWvm^{neStyle 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointk$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advancedl U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggmi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediaten )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2Iopqlqrl݋UpdateInitial Codes for Update Moduleo )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 pDefault Paragraph FoDefault Paragraph Fontq Document 8Document 8r 27sx{tlul_vlˍDocument 4Document 4s  Document 6Document 6t Document 5Document 5u Document 2Document 2v 2}wlixՎyzlDocument 7Document 7w Right Par 1Right Par 1x` hp x (#X` hp 0X` hp 0` hp x (#Right Par 2Right Par 2y` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Document 3Document 3z 2'{|͕}~ Right Par 3Right Par 3{` hp x (#X` hp 0X` hp 0` hp x (#Right Par 4Right Par 4|` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Right Par 5Right Par 5}` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6~` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#2Yw($Right Par 7Right Par 7` hp x (#X` hp 0X` hp 0` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 8` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Document 1Document 1` hp x (#X` hp X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 5` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#23$l7l$Technical 6Technical 6` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 2 Technical 3Technical 3 Technical 4Technical 4` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#27le$Ѫ$Technical 1Technical 1 Technical 7Technical 7` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#Technical 8Technical 8` hp x (#X` hp  X` hp ` hp x (#toc 1toc 1` hp x (#` hp x (#2i÷toc 2toc 2` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toc 3toc 3` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toc 4toc 4` hp x (#  ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5` hp x (#hh` hp x (#2v1žtoc 6toc 6` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7 toc 8toc 8` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9` hp x (#` hp x (#23Qvoindex 1index 1` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#index 2index 2` hp x (#` ` ` hp x (#toa headingtoa heading` hp x (#` hp x (#captioncaption 2l }_Equation Caption_Equation Caption page numberpage number1#XP\  P6QXP#head1 #'d#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf$ 2:Ua2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf:` ` `  a4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfE` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfP  ` ` ` hhh 2)A a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrf[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrff  a8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfq toatoa` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#2F[ &a1Order8X X-I.xa2OrderAp X-xA.` ` a3OrderJ* X-x` ` 1. a4Order4 X- I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. 1.(1)(a) i) a)I.x2-lxe Iafootnote textffootnote reference# MACDocument4     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# T I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)T,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP##u\4 PXP#     X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<     #:}D4P XP# ,0*ÍÍ,*Í ., US!!!! ! #:}D4P XP##:}D4PXP#para numnumbered indented paragraphs' Y- 1.(i) 1) 1.#Xw P7[hXP# 1. 1.Ҳ27v_vvKvheading 4heading 4 heading 5heading 5 heading 6heading 6 heading 7heading 7 2!vivrUZheading 8heading 8 endnote textendnote text endnote referenceendnote reference 1, 2, 3,?@65NumbersO@/"=(1*1÷$t ?.E1.2dS:A, B,t ?@65Uppercase Letters1 ?*1÷$t ?.E .footnote refK&7>footnote referenceGw) "7>NGI "+WXDefault ParaK&7>Default Paragraph Fontw+ "7>NGI "([(\endnote refeK&7>endnote referenceGw- "7>NGI "+_+`2jannotation rK&7>annotation referenceGw. "7>NGI "OaOb#Xv P7XP##Xv P7XP#annotation tK&7>annotation textGw/ "7>NGI "2c(d2G2*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "8ij@  3G3*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Akl@` ` `  ` ` ` 2m4G4*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Jmn` ` ` @  ` ` ` 5G5*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "Sop` ` `  @  6G6*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "\qr` ` `  @hhh hhh 7G7*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "est` ` `  hhh@ hhh 2zpZ8G8*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "nuv` ` `  hhh@  9G9*(K&7>Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7>NGI "wwx` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 10G0*(Q&7tDocument Style Gl0 "7t GI "GH` ` ` 11G1*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "4I$J     2Hq12G2*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "*KL    13G3*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "'MN   14G4*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&OP   15G5*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&QR  . 2I(216G6*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&ST  . 17G7*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&UV  . 18G8*(Q&7tTechnical Document Style "7t GI "&WX  . 19G9*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "8YZ@  2{g20G:*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "A[\@` ` `  ` ` ` 21G;*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "J]^` ` ` @  ` ` ` 22G<*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "S_`` ` `  @  23G=*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "\ab` ` `  @hhh hhh 2KO24G>*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "ecd` ` `  hhh@ hhh 25G?*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "nef` ` `  hhh@  26G@*(Q&7tRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers"7t GI "wgh` ` `  hhh@ppp ppp 27wSg K6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJmn` ` @  ` `  2g}*28wSg L6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ESop` `  @  29wSg M6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\qr` `  @hh#30wSg N6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Eest` `  hh#@( hh# 31wSg O6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Enuv` `  hh#(@- ( 2&pj32wSg P6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ewwx` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 33wSg R6w Document Style=(H8g Rܺ*HںwSg E{|` ` ` 34wSg S6w Technical Document Styleg Sܺ*HںwSg E4}$~     35wSg T6w Technical Document Styleg Tܺ*HںwSg E*    2X36wSg U6w Technical Document Styleg Uܺ*HںwSg E'   37wSg V6w Technical Document Styleg Vܺ*HںwSg E&   38wSg W6w Technical Document Styleg Wܺ*HںwSg E&  . 39wSg X6w Technical Document Styleg Xܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2BY40wSg Y6w Technical Document Styleg Yܺ*HںwSg E&  . 41wSg Z6w Technical Document Styleg Zܺ*HںwSg E&  . 42wSg [6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   43wSg \6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2 &  w - 44wSg ]6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  45wSg ^6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  46wSg _6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 47wSg `6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2   q48wSg a6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 49wSg b6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 50wSg c6w Document Style=(H8g cܺ*HںwSg EF *  ׃  51wSg d6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  21Gi52wSg e6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  53wSg f6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 54wSg g6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 55wSg h6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg En` `  hh#(@- ( 2cp4T56wSg i6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ew` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp 57wSg j6w Document Style=(H8g jܺ*HںwSg E` ` ` 58wSg k6w Technical Document Styleg kܺ*HںwSg E4$     59wSg l6w Technical Document Styleg lܺ*HںwSg E*    2U"K60wSg m6w Technical Document Styleg mܺ*HںwSg E'   61wSg n6w Technical Document Styleg nܺ*HںwSg E&   62wSg o6w Technical Document Styleg oܺ*HںwSg E&  . 63wSg p6w Technical Document Styleg pܺ*HںwSg E&  . 2 #64wSg q6w Technical Document Styleg qܺ*HںwSg E&  . 65wSg r6w Technical Document Styleg rܺ*HںwSg E&  . 66wSg s6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E8@   67wSg t6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EA@` `  ` ` ` 2A68wSg u6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg EJ` ` @  ` `  69wSg v6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg ES` `  @  70wSg w6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg E\` `  @hh# hhh 71wSg x6w Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersܺ*HںwSg Ee` `  hh#@( hh# 2&KK3K~! K#"i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^5>M\\>>>\}0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>}}}\rryrr>Qygyrr\grrggF3FM\>\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QyQQFI3Ic>0cM>>>0>>>>>>\>\3r\r\r\r\r\yyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3y\\\\\\\\\gQr\\\\gQ\r\r\r\r\yQyQycyQnrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\\ccyQg3gBg>g;g3y\jy\y\\\yrFrFrF\F\F\FccgBg3gM\\\\\\ygcgFgFgF\g>y\\Fg>g\n0\\=(=WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnB_\F\\\\\\3;\7;\7>>gg\??n\\pBnnBb\\>g\7"yyyy\njc\}nn\"i~'^09]SS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99]]]Sxnxxng?Snxgx]nxxxxn9/9aS9S]I]I9S]/9]/]S]]I?9]SxSSIC%CW9+Wa999+999999S9]/xSxSxSxSxSxxInInInInI>/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxx J2J>8 &>>,,,,,,,,`` 8888,,,,,,,,,,zz&&>>>r",tB^ f ^Yd ddd dddddd, , u,ddddiSdSud,NdS7uSuSuSuSrSuTxuSSrurxf,ddddW,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNd%  i idd NN,,,, d^i",,,,,,,,,  ,,,  ,,,V' dd,,,,,, d, ,,d,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,dddduuSudddd,,8VnDVVbbJDDPD\> J2J>8 &>>,,,,,,,,`` 8888,,,,,,,,,,zz&&>>>r"i~'K2^$(8<broadcasting business by driving up station prices, thereby exacerbating the difficulty of entering the broadcast industry and of surviving as an independent operator.  S -  ]x 11. Additionally, the Commission received over 13,000 inquiries in the last year from individuals  Sl- xMand groups showing an interest in starting a low power radio station.lG yO- xKԍ For example, the low power radio fact sheet on the Commission's World Wide Web site is averaging more than 1,000 "hits" each month. Furthermore, as noted above,  xhundreds of commenters have urged the Commission to create opportunities for low power, locally  x\oriented radio service. These demonstrations of interest in low power radio service indicate that new  x]classifications of service could be outlets for new voices and program services to serve the public.  xMoreover, it appears that the variety of demands may best be met by more than one station type, as urged  x{by many commenters. For example, a low power station could be designed to operate similar to a  xfull-power station but on a smaller scale, as a service for an ethnic community dispersed throughout an  xentire city, as a supplementary commercial or noncommercial service, or simply as a low cost community service used principally to convey information to listeners, without concern for financial support.  Sn-  "x 12. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether a low power radio service could provide new  x|entrants the ability to add their voices to the existing mix of political, social, and entertainment  xprogramming, and could address special interests shared by residents of geographically compact areas.  x\Numerous commenters state that alternative sources of information and entertainment are not readily  xavailable to dissatisfied speakers and listeners through the acquisition of an existing frequency, leased time  So- xfrom full power stations, an internet website,LoBG yOQ"-ԍ Greater Media, Inc. Comments at 7.L or internet webcasting,OoG {O#-ԍ Id. at 7; Press Comments at 8.O the last three of which do not"od 0*$&$&,,."  S- x=require a license. G yOh- xԍ An example of broadcast radio programming made available over the internet is < www.airos.org >: The  xAmerican Indian Radio on Satellite (AIROS) network is a national distribution system for Native programming to  xTribal communities and to general audiences through Native American and other public radio stations as well as the internet. Commenters note that the first  xalternative is too restrictive and provides insufficient access and control to the speaker to meet the demand  xthat has spawned this rule making proceeding. The consistent demand for various forms of low power  x?radio stations, including microradio stations, indicates that many people interested in community  x.broadcasting cannot afford either their own full power stations or whatever limited access to established  xkstations may be available. Moreover, people with nonmainstream interests or unconventional views  xwould have access to the airwaves only with the consent of a full power station owner, which could  xseverely limit their range of expression. We recognize that the internet offers unprecedented opportunities  xto communicate inexpensively to others around the world and to receive information or programming of  xyinterest. However, at this time, internet access is not sufficiently mobile and ubiquitous to be considered  x.a substitute for radio broadcasting's capability to reach the public, despite some opponents' contentions  S- xto the contrary.>G yO-ԍ Press Comments at 8.> Thus, it appears that low power radio offers opportunities to potential broadcasters and  xzlisteners for which there are currently no comparable alternatives. Commenters are invited to address these issues.  S -   x 13. The technical parameters and other regulations for a particular service could affect not only  xythe availability of frequencies for such stations, but also the nature of the licensees and listeners attracted  x[to different types of stations and the resulting service. A higher power LPFM class with a larger service  xarea would be more likely to attract more listeners, including listeners in vehicles, who account for a  xsignificant segment of the listeners of full power radio stations. Authorizing these as primary stations  xcould provide stability that could enable licensees to obtain necessary funding to equip stations of this size  xand operate them in a manner that could more effectively serve the community; for example, perhaps a  xstation could secure the resources to provide live coverage of high school sporting events or local civic  xor community meetings or events. At the same time, with a relatively small operating budget and a  x?relatively small coverage area, such LPFM stations might be able to offer very localized exposure attractive to local businesses that could not otherwise afford radio advertising.  S-  0x 14. A lower power, less costly class of LPFM station, with secondary frequency use status and  xfewer operating and other regulatory requirements than full service broadcasters, might appeal to operators  x=desiring to broadcast to smaller nonmobile audiences, especially if operated at locales where there would  xbe little likelihood of channel displacement. As Skinner notes, such stations could often be operated by  xzlocal volunteers. In some cases, stations might not be able to operate on a fulltime basis or according  xjto a regular schedule, but might still offer "niche" programming and important community event coverage and news and weather bulletins, such as school closing announcements.  S- B. Spectrum Considerations  S-  !x15. New Spectrum Allocation. As an initial matter, we do not intend to create a low power radio  xservice on any spectrum beyond that which is currently allocated for FM use and, as described below, we"o@0*$&$&,,!"  x-do not propose to use the AM band. To allocate spectrum not currently used for broadcasting would force  xconsumers to purchase new equipment to gain the benefits of the new service, which would likely have a substantial dampening effect on its success.  S4-  ?x16. Channels for Low Power Radio. Although it might be desirable to locate the new low power  xyservices on a small number of particular channels, with more than 7,000 stations now licensed on the 100  xFM channels, it does not appear possible to designate a particular FM frequency or frequencies for one  xor more low power services (as proposed in the Leggett Petition). No single frequency is available that  x[would protect existing radio service throughout the country. There also does not appear to be any larger  xysegment of the FM spectrum that is generally more available for LPFM operation and to which we could accordingly restrict low power radio service, but we request comment on this assessment.  S -  x17. We propose to add any new low power radio services in the FM band only. We do not favor  Sj - x]authorizing low power radio use in the AM radio band, as suggested by some commenters.yj G {O -ԍ See, e.g., Trident Media and Broadcasting, Ltd. Petition for Rule Making.y The  x[interference potential and present congestion in the AM band, where many stations currently experience  x?significant interference and degraded reception, make it a poor choice for a new radio service. The  xKpropagation characteristics of AM signals could exacerbate the interference potential of low power stations,  xcausing signals to extend long distances, particularly at night. Indeed, because of the congestion in the  xAM band and the serious problems of both daytime and nighttime interference affecting many stations,  xthe Commission expanded the AM band in 1991 to provide for the migration of stations to the new  xsegment of the band in order to reduce the congestion and resulting interference in the AM radio band.  S- xReport and Order in MM Docket No. 87267, 6 FCC Rcd 6273 (1991) (subsequent history omitted). We  x believe that introducing low power stations into any part of the AM spectrum would have a serious  xznegative impact on our efforts to improve the quality of reception in this band. We seek comment on these positions.  S-  x18. The FM radio band, 88108 MHz, is divided into 100 "channels" of 200 kHz each. For  xjconvenient reference, these channels are given numerical designations which range from 201300. Section  x73.501 of our rules, 47 C.F.R.  73.501, currently restricts the use of FM channels 201220 (8892 MHz)  xto noncommercial educational broadcasting. Pursuant to Section 73.503(a) of our rules, 47 C.F.R.   x73.503, a noncommercial educational FM broadcast station will be licensed only to a nonprofit educational  xorganization and upon showing that the station will be used for the broadcast of noncommercial  xeducational programming. Accordingly, absent a change in our rules, only those noncommercial entities  xthat meet these requirements would be eligible to apply for and operate LPFM stations in this part of the band, and all operations would have to be strictly noncommercial.  S-  x19. Since Congress' first direction to the Commission to study the need for a noncommercial  S- xservice "ZG yO!- x,ԍ In the Communications Act of 1934, Congress ordered the Commission to "study the proposal that Congress  xby statute allocate fixed percentages of radio broadcasting facilities to particular types or kinds of nonprofit radio  xprograms or to persons associated with particular types or kinds of nonprofit activities" and report its  {O#-recommendations to Congress. See 47 U.S.C. 307(c) (1934). through several statutory requirements which contemplate noncommercial educational broadcast"D 0*$&$&,, "  S- xKservice,,!@G yOh- xyԍ Part IV, Subpart A of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, sets forth a number of provisions  xintended to provide assistance to noncommercial telecommunications entities, including broadcasters. One of  xCongress's stated goals is to "strengthen the capacity of existing public television and radio stations to provide public  xtelecommunications services to the public." 47 C.F.R.  390(3). For example, Congress has authorized the  xCommerce Department to make financial grants for the construction of public broadcast stations. 47 C.F.R.  392(a).  xAlso, in creating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in Subpart D of Part IV, Congress found that "it is in the  xpublic interest to encourage the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes." 47 C.F.R.  396(a)(1)., it appears that Congress is concerned with the opportunity for and continuation of noncommercial  S- xeducational broadcast service. The Commission has also steadfastly preserved this important service. "FG {O= - xxԍ See, e.g., Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 98203, 63 Fed. Reg. 68722 (December 14,  x1998) (in which the Commission, recognizing the importance of noncommercial educational broadcasting, has  xrequested comment on whether to impose limits on activities undertaken by noncommercial educational television  {O - xlicensees on the excess capacity of their digital television signal); see also Amendments to the Television Table of  {Oa - xAssignments to Change Noncommercial Educational Reservations, 58 RR 2d 1455 (1986), petition for recon. denied,  x3 FCC Rcd. 2517 (1988) (allowing the licensees of a commercial and of a noncommercial channel within the same  xband and serving substantially the same area to exchange their channels to help preserve educational broadcasting in the wake of decreased federal funding).   x^In considering new classes of FM radio service, we are inclined, at a minimum, to continue the  xnoncommercial educational channel reservation with respect to any new stations that would have a  xpreclusive effect on the operation of full power stations in the reserved band, such as the primary low  x.power stations discussed below. We seek comment on this determination. Commenters should address  xany statutory limitation on our discretion in this regard. We also seek comment on whether we must as  x=a matter of law or should as a matter of policy extend a parallel reservation to any secondary low power  xor microradio stations that we might authorizeRESERVED BAND on channels 201220. Commenters should also address  xwhether all low power (and microradio) services should be limited to noncommercial operation, and  xwhether eligibility should correspondingly be restricted to those who would qualify as noncommercial  xlicensees under our current rules. We also ask whether there are potential applicants for the proposed  xsecondary low power and microradio services being considered that could meet the strict eligibility criteria that pertain to the existing noncommercial educational broadcasters.  S -  x20. We contemplate that some low power radio stations, like other radio broadcast stations, would  x.want to use auxiliary broadcast frequencies, where available (for example, for studiototransmitter links  xand transmission of remote broadcasts). While use of auxiliary frequencies may not be necessary for very  xklow power stations with limited range, their use might be essential for a larger LPFM class of station.  x We seek comment on whether all LPFM stations, whether primary or secondary stations, should be permitted to seek authority to use radio broadcast auxiliary frequencies.  S-  "x21. Spectrum Priority. Interference protection is a critical issue that could have a potentially  xsignificant effect on where we can institute LPFM service and on the number of LPFM facilities that could  x\be authorized, as well as on the extent to which the introduction of such stations could affect existing  xbroadcasters' ability to modify their facilities. Ensuring the effective and efficient use of the spectrum  S- xis one of the fundamental responsibilities of the Commission. See 47 U.S.C.  151, 303(f) and (g). We  xmust decide whether LPFM services, if authorized, would provide and receive interference protection with  xrespect not only to existing, but also to future fullservice radio facilities and the effects of such"n "0*$&$&,,"  xrequirements on both the LPFM or microradio service and on existing broadcasters. Whether an LPFM  xservice has "primary" or "secondary" status with respect to other FM and LPFM services would affect  x=where LPFM stations could operate, the stability of their operations, and the effect they would have on  xthe introduction of new fullservice FM stations and improvements to existing stations. In the next  xsection, we propose both a primary LPFM service and a secondary LPFM service to operate at lower  xpower levels. Commenters should carefully consider the effects of these spectrum priority classifications for each new service.  Sh- C. Technical Overview of LPFM Services  S-  x22. We are tentatively persuaded that the different visions and service demands for low power  xradio could not be well accommodated by a single class of LPFM service. Therefore, we propose two  xdistinct classes of service: (1) a primary LPFM service class with an ERP limit of 1,000 watts (designated  x"LP1000") and (2) a secondary class with an ERP limit of 100 watts (designated "LP100"). We also seek  x[comment on the advisability of establishing a very low power secondary "microradio" service with ERP  xlimit of one to ten watts. We first give a technical overview of these services and then focus on key technical and nontechnical issues for the proposed LPFM services.  Sj-x 3 1. 1000Watt Primary Service ("LP1000") ă  S-  x23. We propose LP1000 stations that would operate at a maximum effective radiated power  S- x("ERP") of 1000 watts at an antenna height above average terrain ("HAAT") of 60 meters (197 feet).'#XG yO9- xԍ Antenna heights greater than 60 meters HAAT would be permitted, but an appropriate downward adjustment  xin ERP would have to be made such that the 1 mV/m F(50,50) signal contour radius would not exceed 14.2 kilometers. '  xIn order to give station operators maximum flexibility to make use of available sites consistent with our  xinterference protection criteria, we do not propose a minimum HAAT. These appear to be reasonable  xjlimits for such a service. We propose to protect the 1 mV/m (60 dBu) signal contour of LP1000 stations  xoperating at the maximum ERP and HAAT levels. The minimum separation distances to other stations  xwould be derived on this basis. We note that 60 dBu is the protected contour for Class A stations, the  xnext highest class of FM station. We believe this value would work well with the proposed power and  xkheight limits and provides a reasonable compromise between the size of LP1000 service areas and the  xpreclusion of other radio services. For example, an LP1000 station would preclude authorization of  S-another LP1000 station on the same channel within 65 kilometers (40 miles). See Appendix B.  S-  x24. The proposed power/height combination would produce a 60 dBu signal contour at a distance  xof 14.2 kilometers (8.8 miles) from the station, or approximately one half the distance to the protected 60  S;- xldBu contour of a Class A station using maximum facilities.$;G yO - xԍ A Class A FM station may operate with an ERP up to 6 kilowatts at an HAAT of 100 meters (328 feet), which produces a 60 dBu contour at a distance of 28 kilometers (17.4 miles). 47 C.F.R.  73.211(b).  Such a service contour could cover a  xsignificant portion of many urban or suburban areas, and most mediumsize or small rural communities.  x<Depending on population density, terrain and other relevant factors, such a station could reach a substantial  xnumber of listeners. We seek comment on whether this service should be restricted to noncommercial  xapplicants, open to commercial service, or both. We also seek comment on whether the population in"o @$0*$&$&,,!" these service areas could be large enough to sustain an advertising base.  S-  x25. A signal range of more than 8 miles should enable service to mobile listeners and to people  x[living on farms or ranches in the vicinity of small rural communities. However, we ask whether the type  xof service envisioned for LP1000 stations could be met with lower power levels and/or antenna heights.  xyWe do not believe that a higher power or antenna height, such as the 3000 watt/100 meter limit proposed  xby Skinner, which surpasses many current radio facilities, would be necessary to achieve the goals we  x{have set forth. We are concerned that the greater interference protection requirements for stations  xoperating at Skinner's proposed power and height limits would sharply restrict opportunities for new  xjstations in most midsized and larger markets. The need for larger facilities could be met by Class A FM  xstations, which operate at ERP levels up to 6 kilowatts. Thus, the upper limits of 1000 watts and 60  xmeters are being proposed because, we believe, they represent a good compromise between achieving a  xLmoderate service area and permitting reasonably closely spaced LP1000 stations on the same or adjacent  xchannels. We note that a 60 meter antenna height would not require FAA clearance at many locations.  xThis height should also be likely to provide a clear signal path within many areas to be served. We seek comment on the above parameters and assumptions, as well as on any reasonable alternatives.  S -  x26. In paragraph DISTANCE SEP40, below, we propose minimum distance separations between stations as  xinterference protection criteria for LPFM stations. These separations would be based on LPFM stations  xoperating at their maximum permitted ERP and HAAT. Thus, LPFM stations operating below the  xmaximum levels would preclude other FM service on the basis of the upper ERP and HAAT limits.  xWhile we believe LPFM stations should have some flexibility to operate below maximum levels, we  xbelieve there should also be a lower ERP limit in the interest of efficient use of the radio spectrum. For  x<this purpose, we propose a minimum ERP of 500 watts which, with a HAAT of 60 meters, would produce  xja 60 dBu service contour at a distance of 12 kilometers (7.5 miles). We do not propose a minimum value  xfor HAAT. Applicants seeking to operate smaller facilities could apply for LP100 stations. We invite  x>comment on the issue of minimum power and height levels of LP1000 stations and whether different  xlevels would be more appropriate either in general, or in specific circumstances such as to meet distance separation requirements or in order to accommodate a negotiated settlement agreement.  S-  x27. Primary stations%G yOn- xԍ Noncommercial Class D, FM translator, and FM booster stations are "secondary" services, which "primary" stations are not required to protect. operating in the FM service are required to protect all other primary  S- xstations.&" G yO- xԍ Nonreserved band protection requirements may be based either on distance separations or on a combination  xof distance and contourbased restrictions. Noncommercial educational stations in the reserved band rely solely on  {O#- xa signal strength contour methodology. See 47 C.F.R.  73.207, 73.209, 73.213, 73.215 and 73.509 and the discussion of FM interference protection requirements in Appendix A. We propose to extend such primary status to LP1000 stations, which we believe could  xstrengthen this class's ability to serve as an entrylevel radio service. Because LP1000 stations would cost  xMmore to construct and operate than LP100 stations, secondary status might discourage potential new entrants from investing their time and money into this service, thereby frustrating its purpose.  S-  x28. These stations would operate under the majority of the service rules and obligations applicable  xto primary stations generally. We note that LP1000 stations would have a maximum service area more" &0*$&$&,, "  xthan six times larger than LP100 stations and, as just noted, would be more expensive to construct and  xoperate. As primary stations, LP1000 stations would be required to give and receive cochannel, first xkadjacent channel, and IF interference protection equivalent to the protection levels other primary FM  Sg- xstations provide each other.}'gG yO- xԍ All LP1000 stations would receive interference protection, and would provide interference protection based  xon the assumption of maximum facilities (1000 watts, 60 meters HAAT) at the station, irrespective of the actual  xfacilities used, just as is done for all current classes of commercial FM stations. Required minimum station  xseparations would be based on the desiredtoundesired signal strength ratios used to determine protection to other  xradio classes; e.g. 20 dB protection for cochannel and 6 dB for 1stadjacent channel stations. As addressed in  yO- x,paragraphs 3D-ADJ START43ש2D END48, below, we are proposing not to require LP1000 stations to give, or receive, 3rdadjacent channel  xinterference protection to or from any class of FM radio station, and we seek comments on the need for 2ndadjacent  xchannel protection requirements. Nevertheless, to guide commenters, we include in Appendix B the equivalent  xminimum separation distances for LPFM protection to stations authorized on 2nd and 3rdadjacent channels.  {O -Stations operating on channels 201220 would be required to protect TV Channel 6. See 47C.F.C. 73.525.} Likewise, new and modified facilities of existing classes of FM stations  xzwould be required to give cochannel, firstadjacent channel, and IF interference protection to LP1000  xstations equivalent to the protection that they provide to each other. The extent of interference protection  xto and from LP1000 stations would be based entirely on minimum station separation requirements, at least  S- xduring the initial implementation of the LPFM services.m(b G yO- xԍ We are not proposing to accept "shortspaced" LP1000 applications requiring casebycase analysis and  xMreview. Such laborintensive applications, the number of which could be quite large, would undermine our  xprocessing efforts and the simplicity essential for a service intended to be readily accessible to the widest segment  xof the public. We believe that the public interest would be best served by an efficient and expeditious licensing process based on straightforward distance separation requirements.m We propose that LP1000 stations protect other  xLP1000 stations on the same channel and firstadjacent channel, and we invite comment on whether these  S5- xstations should have to protect each other's IF frequencies; i.e., for FM channels separated by 53 or 54  S-channels.) G yO- xԍ Station separations requirements for stations operating on channels that are 53 or 54 channels apart are  xintended to control intermodulation interference caused by the mixing of signals in a receiver that produce counterfeit  xsignals falling on the receiver's intermediate frequency. These separations are premised on nonoverlapping 36 mV/m contours of the stations whose signals could mix together to cause interference.   S -  x29. We invite comment on our proposals to create an LP1000 class and afford it primary  xfrequency use status. Commenters should consider the desirability of such a service as well as its potential  ximpact on other FM service classes. We are also concerned whether an LP1000 service would limit or  ximpair the ability of full power stations to implement digital transmission technology such as inbandon S - xchannel ("IBOC") conversion. As further discussed at paragraph IBOC DISCUSSION49, below, we seek comment on this  xconcern. We also seek comment on the impact of affording LP1000 stations primary status against  Sk- xsecondary FM translator and booster stations.@*XkG yO"- xԍ FM translator stations are secondary stations which receive the signals of primary FM stations and rebroadcast  xZthe FM programming on a different channel. FM boosters rebroadcast FM primary signals on the same channel. 47.C.F.R.  74.1201. @ In what manner should these stations protect LP1000  x[stations? Should the current scheme for translator and booster protection of FM stations be extended to"8 *0*$&$&,,"  S- xprotect LP1000 stations?3+G yOh- xԍ FM translator or booster stations are generally not permitted to cause interference to the reception of regularly  xused signals of authorized radio broadcast stations. 47 C.F.R.  74.1203. Applications for FM translator stations  xware not accepted for filing if the proposed facilities would result in prohibited overlap of their specified field strength  xcontours and the protected contours of authorized FM radio stations. Interference protections are afforded to co {O- xchannel stations and stations on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rdadjacent channels and IF channels; i.e., channels separated by 53 or 54 channels from that of an FM radio station. 47 C.F.R.  74.1204.3 Should FM translator and booster service predating the launch of an LP1000  xjservice receive "grandfathered" interference protection from LP1000 stations? We also seek comment on  xwhether to prohibit the establishment of any translator or booster stations for use in conjunction with  xLP1000 stations, given our desire to maximize ownership and service opportunities for locally owned LPFM stations.  S->  2. 100Watt Secondary Service ("LP100") ă  Sh-  x30. The 100watt class would be intended to meet the demand of people who would like to  x[broadcast affordably to communities of moderate size (whether standing alone in rural areas or as part of  x!a larger urban area). We propose to establish an LP100 service to permit stations to operate as a  S- x{secondary service at maximum facilities of 100 watts ERP and 30 meters (98 feet) HAAT.(,XBG yO- xԍ Antenna heights greater than 30 meters HAAT would be permitted, but an appropriate downward adjustment  xin ERP watts would have to be made such that the 1 mV/m F(50,50) signal contour radius would not exceed 5.6 kilometers.( This  x=combination would produce a 1 mV/m (60 dBu) signal contour at a distance of 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles)  xfrom the station. Depending on population density, an LP100 station might serve from a few hundred to  xseveral thousand listeners. We note that these parameters would produce roughly equivalent coverage area  xto the parameters proposed by Skinner for a similar service (50 watts ERP at 150 feet HAAT). We  xbelieve that our proposed limits would facilitate more economical station construction, and we seek  xcomment on this view. We propose a minimum LP100 ERP of 50 watts which, with an HAAT of 30  xLmeters, would produce a 60 dBu signal contour at a distance of 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) from the station.  xLAs with LP1000 stations, we do not propose a minimum HAAT for LP100 stations. This is in order to  x=give station operators maximum flexibility to make use of available sites consistent with our interference  xNprotection criteria. We invite comment on all of these power and height values. Are the resulting  xcoverage areas appropriate, or would alternative levels for power or height be more suitable for the  x>envisioned purposes of this LPFM service class? Should this service be restricted to noncommercial  xapplicants, open to commercial service, or both? Should there be a different lower power limit for this  S- xservice, such as 30 watts? We also propose lesser operating and service requirements, see Section G.,  xbelow, to compensate for the more limited service area of LP100 stations. We invite comment on these and other options to promote an affordable community broadcasting service.  S:-  x31. We propose that LP100 stations would operate on a secondary basis with respect to all  xprimary radio stations, including LP1000 stations. They would not be permitted to cause interference  xwithin the protected service contours of existing and future primary stations, nor would they be protected  xfrom interference from these stations. LP100 stations would provide cochannel, firstadjacent channel,  xand IF interference protection to the existing FM station classes, and cochannel and firstadjacent channel"n b ,0*$&$&,,"  S- x=protection to LP1000 stations.R-XG yOh- xYԍ The protection provided by LP100 stations would assume the use of maximum (100 watts, 30 meters HAAT)  xfacilities, even if lesser facilities are used. LP100 stations operating on channels 201220 would also have to protect TV Channel 6 (see 47C.F.R. 73.525).R We invite comment on whether LP100 stations should also provide IF  S- xprotection to LP1000 stations. In paragraphs 3D-ADJ START43ש2D END48, below, we seek comment on our proposal not to  xrequire LPFM stations to provide 3rdadjacent channel protection, as well as whether such stations should  xbe required to provide secondadjacent channel protection or to receive such protection. By proposing  x-secondary status for LP100 stations, we believe we could authorize more of these stations with less impact  xon primary broadcast services. In this regard, efforts of full service radio stations to relocate and/or  xupgrade their facilities would not be curtailed by the need to protect much smaller facilities. If LP100  x stations were primary, for example, a Class C FM station using maximum power and antenna height  Sh- xwould have to protect all cochannel LP100 stations within a distance of 126.5 miles..hG yO - xԍ A Class C station using maximum power and antenna height has a cochannel interference contour (0.1  xxmV/m) with a radius of 198 kilometers (123 miles), and would thus have to protect all cochannel LP100 station  xcoverage contours within that distance. LP100 coverage contours would extend 3.5 miles from their station sites.  xGiven the likelihood that large numbers of LP100 stations would be operated, modifications to Class C stations, as  xwell as all other existing station classes, would become extremely difficult, if not impossible, if they were required to provide interference protection to LP100 stations. However, there  xmay be situations in which secondary LP100 stations might not be concerned about being forced either  xto cease broadcasts or relocate to a different channel as a result of technical changes to a nearby primary  xstation. For example, in some of the more congested areas, higher power FM stations may possibly be  xunable to upgrade their facilities to a higher class, due to the need to protect nearby full power stations.  xIn these situations, LP100 stations could fill the "gaps" between gridlocked full power stations. In the less  xkcongested areas of the country, we would expect that displaced LP100 stations could more readily be relocated to alternate frequencies.  S -  @x32. We seek comment on our proposal that LP100 stations be afforded a lower spectrum use  xypriority than LP1000 stations. LP1000 stations would serve larger areas, be more expensive to build and  xoperate, and would be subject to many of regulations applicable to primary FM services. New LP100  xstations would be required to protect existing LP1000 stations. We seek comment on whether new  xLP1000 stations should be required to protect existing cochannel and 1stadjacent channel LP100 stations.  xIf such protection were not required, LP100 service could be disrupted, which might discourage operation  xzof these stations. In commenting on this issue, commenters should address the likely cost differences  xbetween LP1000 and LP100 stations, including costs of station construction and operation. Commenters  x=should also consider the costs of complying with the additional regulations that would apply to LP1000  S- xstations (see the discussion of LPFM service rules in Section G., below). We also seek comment on  xwhether LP100 stations should be permitted to select channels without regard to interference received from  xjother stations. Preliminary staff analysis suggests that many more LP100 stations could operate if these  xstations were permitted to apply for channels for which up to 10% of the area within the 60 dBu contour  S-would be predicted to receive interference.a/X` G yO#- xԍ In 1stadjacent and co-channel situations, the interfering contour extends significantly farther than the  xprotected contour. Therefore, an LP100 station could provide protection to a full service station's protected contour and still receive significant amounts of interference.a" /0*$&$&,,|"Ԍ S-  ԙx 33. We tentatively conclude that the proposed LP100 secondary service would serve the public  xkinterest. We invite comment on our technical proposals for this service, including power and antenna  S- xheight limits and the secondary status of the service. As further discussed in paragraph IBOC DISCUSSION49, below, we  xseek comment on the effect, if any, of an LP100 service on full power operations and their eventual digital  xyconversion. We also seek comment on the likely impact of LP100 stations on FM translator and booster  xystations. Should LP100 stations be authorized on an equal basis with FM translators and boosters, since  xKboth would be secondary services, or should LP100 stations be primary with respect to FM translators and  S- xboosters, which do not originate programming? If FM translators are treated as a secondary service vis  Si- xa vis LP100 stations, should we provide "grandfathered" interference protection to translator and booster  xservice existing before our adoption of the LP100 radio class? To promote localism, should we prohibit translator or booster rebroadcasts of the programming of LP100 stations?  S - 3. 110 Watt Secondary "Microradio" Service ă  S8 -  Nx!34. We seek comment on the creation of a third class of LPFM service, which would be intended  xto allow an individual or group of people with very limited means to construct a broadcast facility and  xypermit them to reach listeners within the confines of a very localized setting. This service would operate  xzwith a maximum antenna height of 30 meters HAAT (and no minimum HAAT) and ERP levels in the  xrange of one to ten watts. These values would produce a 1 mV/m (60 dBu) signal contour at distances  xof about 1.8 kilometers to 3.2 kilometers (12 miles), depending on the ERP level. This class would be  xLsimilar to that proposed in the Leggett petition, except that it would not be limited to a single designated  xlchannel. Clearly, microstations would offer only very limited coverage, such as for schools, small  xyneighborhoods, subdivisions, or town centers. We seek comment on whether such facilities could satisfy  x[some of the demand that has been expressed for very inexpensive community radio services, particularly  x[in places where LP100 stations could not be located due to interference concerns or financial constraints.  xConstruction costs for such a broadcasting apparatus could be quite low, potentially in the hundreds of  xdollars for some facilities. We seek comment on whether such a class of service should be restricted to noncommercial applicants, open to commercial service, or both.  S;-  !x"35. If we adopt a microradio service, we believe there should be an FCC transmitter certification CERTIFY   xjrequirement. We are vitally concerned that such stations meet transmitter outofchannel emission limits  x and other standards related to interference protection of stations on adjacent channels. We note that  S- xuncertified equipment has on numerous occasions caused dangerous interference to aviation frequencies.]0G {O -ԍ See, e.g., para. AVIATION65, below.]  xWe do not believe that a certification requirement would overly burden small operators, given the recent  S<- xstreamlining of our certification procedures.1<ZG {O6- xԍ See Report and Order in Gen Docket No. 9868, FCC 98338 (released Dec. 23, 1998) (Equipment  {O -Authorization Streamlining R&O). We seek comments on this proposal, including not only burdens of compliance, but specific harms that could result from not requiring transmitter certification.  S-  x#36. If we were to establish a microradio class, we would envision it as being secondary to all  x.other FM radio services, including LP100 stations. Microradio stations would be required to protect all  xexisting and future primary stations against cochannel and 1stadjacent channel interference, as well as  xFM translator and boosters, and would not receive protection from these stations. Interference protection" 10*$&$&,,F#"  x.to these services would be based on minimum distance separations. We expect that many microstations  S- xcould be located on this basis.v2G yO5- xYԍ Onewatt microstations would have a cochannel interference contour (0.1 mV/m, based on a protection ratio  xof 20 dB) with a radius of 5.7 kilometers (3.5 miles) and a firstadjacent channel interference contour (0.5 mV/m,  xxbased on 6 dB protection) of 2.6 kilometers (1.6 miles). Such stations could be located as close as 5.7 kilometers  xwto the edge of the service area contour of the nearest cochannel station or 2.6 kilometers to the edge of the service area contour of the nearest firstadjacent channel station.v While a single station operating from 1 to 10 watts ERP may not pose  xka serious threat for 2nd or 3rdadjacent channel or IF interference, where the interference range might  xextend only a few hundred feet, we are concerned about uncertain effects of the combined interference  x=potential of possibly many such stations operating on the same channel in the same general area, and we  xkseek comment in this regard. We also seek comment on the extent to which a very low power service  S-would adversely affect full power stations in their current operations or eventual transition to digital.]3xG {O -ԍ See para. IBOC DISCUSSION49, below.]  Sh-  x$37. We invite comment on the merits of a very low power "microradio" class of LPFM service.  xyWhile we are cognizant that many commenters believe that one watt would be insufficient power for any  S- xLPFM service,4 G yO- xԍ For example, the Community Radio Coalition ("CRC") proposes a minimum of five watts. CRC Petition for Rule Making at 3. we include it in our proposal to allow additional comment. We are uncertain whether  xthe service would be more feasible at a somewhat higher power level, such as 10 watts ERP. Commenters  xshould weigh the possible benefits and possible adverse impact of microradio stations and should consider  xappropriate distance separations to govern interference protection for such stations. If we were to adopt a microradio stations class, should such stations be required to protect each other against interference?  S - D. Interference Protection Criteria  Sj-  ]x%38. We now turn to questions and proposals concerning interference protection criteria to govern  xthe authorization of low power radio services. The types of interference protected against and the means  xof protection are pivotal issues that would significantly affect the number of LPFM stations that could be  x>authorized and the extent of services provided by these stations. The interference protection criteria  xselected for LPFM stations could also affect existing and future service of FM radio stations of all classes. We urge commenters to consider carefully these issues.  S-  x&39. Commercial FM stations traditionally have been authorized to operate on channels allotted  xfor a particular community and class of station. A maximum power and antenna height is specified for  xeach station class, which determines the maximum service area for the class. FM channel allotments are  xdetermined on the basis of specified minimum distance separations from other allotments for the same  S9- xchannel and three pairs of adjacent channels.75X9b G yO;"- xZԍ Pursuant to Sections 73.213 and 73.215 of our rules, FM stations may be assigned at locations that do not  xmeet the distance separations of Section 73.207 on the basis of a combination of reduced separations and signal contour protection.7 FM allotment separations are computed on the basis of  xmaximum class facilities. Distances are derived from a desiredtoundesired signal strength ratio" 50*$&$&,,"  xLmethodology to permit interferencefree broadcasts within each station's protected service contour. The  xuse of distance separations for determining channel allotments has proven to be an effective and straightforward means for maintaining the technical integrity of the FM radio service.  S4-  x'40. Minimum Distance Separations Between Stations. If we were to create one or more classes  x!of low power radio service, we would expect to receive a very large volume of applications. The  xexpeditious authorization of such service requires a simple, yet effective, means of controlling interference  xamong stations. With this in mind, we believe minimum distance separations DISTANCE SEPbetween stations may be  xzthe best practical means of governing interference to and from low power radio stations. Appendix B  x-hereto presents several tables which specify minimum distance separations for the LPFM classes described  x!above, including an explanation of how these distances were determined. The tables consider the  xfollowing interference protections: cochannel, 1stadjacent channel, 2ndadjacent channel for reserved  x/band frequencies, 2nd/3rdadjacent channel for commercial band frequencies (in the event we were to  xrequire these protections) and intermediate frequencies. In the tables, protection of LPFM stations to each  x/other includes minimum separations for only cochannel and firstadjacent channel interference. The  x[various tables include minimum distance separations for maintaining existing levels of protection to radio  x stations of each particular class, as well as station separations for equivalent protection from LPFM  xstations to other LPFM stations. The appendix also includes tables of distance spacings for stations that  xwould operate within 320 kilometers of the common borders with Canada or Mexico, based on the  xprotection requirements in our agreements with these countries. We recognize that an approach based on  xydistance separations could result in fewer LPFM stations and that additional stations could be "squeezed  x]in" if a contour overlap methodology were employed. However, as the Commission learned from  ximplementing the low power television service, the contour overlap approach is resource intensive and  xrequires, among other things, substantial preparation in advance of receiving applications, including the  xwriting of complex computer programs and preparation of several data bases. A contour protectionbased  xllicensing system could also impose substantial additional processing burdens on the staff. We are  xconcerned, therefore, that adoption of this approach could substantially delay the authorization of low  S- xjpower radio service and place a heavy burden on small LPFM applicants._6XG yO- xԍ For example, a contour overlap approach would involve terrain data and computations of antenna height above  xaverage terrain. It would also require applicants to submit data on directional antenna patterns, which the Commission would enter into a directional antenna data base._ In contrast, use of minimum  xspacings would facilitate not only a streamlined application process, but would also enable a quick  S:- xautomated "selfcheck" of frequency availability before an applicant files its application (see paragraph  S-AVAILABLE?95, below).  S-  x(41. We seek comment on our proposed use of minimum distance separations and, in particular,  xNon whether the specific values tabulated in Appendix B are appropriate for the different types of  S<- xinterference protections.7<G yO - x-ԍ We include minimum separation distances for protection to and from stations operating on 2nd and 3rdadjacent channels, even through the need for these protections for LPFM stations are at issue in this proceeding.  While we believe it is important to afford a level of protected service to low  xpower stations, particularly LP1000 stations, we invite comment on whether low power stations of a  xparticular class should be permitted to accept interference from other stations, including interference from  xother low power stations. If so, should this be permitted only where there are interference agreements  xbetween stations? For secondary LPFM service, should there be a limit to the amount of interference that"p@70*$&$&,,!"  x>could be received for a channel to be considered available? While we prefer the simplicity offered by  xlstation separation requirements, we realize there may be advantages to using a more sophisticated  xinterference modelling approach. Possible approaches might include the combination of contour protection  xand reduced station separations (Section 73.215 of the FM radio rules), the contour protection methods  xused in the low power television service (Sections 74.705, 74.705 and 74.706), or even more elaborate  xjmethods involving a terraindependent propagation model, such as the pointtopoint model proposed in  S- x>our radio technical streamlining proceeding.8G {O6-ԍ Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order in MM Docket No. 98-93, 13 FCC Rcd. 14849, 1486365 (1998). Depending on our initial experience in authorization of  xLPFM service, should we later consider a more sophisticated and spectrally efficient approach? We invite comment on these issues, including the effectiveness of alternative approaches for interference protection.  S-  @x)42. Types of Interference Protection Standards.  No commenter in this proceeding takes issue  xNwith the need to protect stations operating on the same channel or on a 1stadjacent channel from  xinterference caused by LPFM facilities, and we propose these protections for any LPFM class we would  xauthorize. At issue is the need to protect stations operating on the 2nd and 3rdadjacent channels with  x<respect to LPFM stations. Commenters supporting LPFM services generally oppose any requirements for  x2nd or 3rdadjacent channel protections, contending such interference from low power stations would be,  S - xkat most, minimal.9  ZG yO- xiԍ For example, the Skinner Petition at 34 suggests that these protections are no longer necessary because of  x;"vast improvements in receiver technology since the restrictions were created decades ago." CRC asserts that these  xprotections are unnecessary for LPFM facilities operating with less than 50 watts at 100 meters HAAT (or any equivalent combination of power and HAAT). CRC Petition for Rule Making at 3. Some commenters, including the NAB, NPR, and New Jersey Broadcasting, Inc.,  xbelieve these protections should be retained to prevent interference and/or protect future digital terrestrial  Sk- xradio service.:kBG {OM- xԍ NAB Comments at 2025; NPR Statement at 7; New Jersey Broadcasting, Inc. Comments at 24. See also USA Digital Radio, Inc. Comments at 78 (addressing 2ndadjacent channel protections only). As noted below, these protections would limit substantially the number of channels  xavailable for low power radio generally and could preclude altogether the introduction of LPFM service  xin midsized and large cities. Therefore, to the extent possible, we are inclined to authorize low power service without any 2nd and 3rdadjacent channel protection standards.  Sl-  Px*43. ThirdAdjacent Channel Protection. 3D-ADJ STARTWe believe that a strong case can be made for not  S:- xrequiring 3rdadjacent protection to or from any of the contemplated classes of LPFM station; i.e.,  xprotection to stations operating on channels separated by 600 kHz. We believe that authorizing LPFM  xNservice without a 3rdadjacent channel protection requirement would entail, at worst, little risk of  xLinterference to existing radio service. Areas of potential interference would be very small and occur only  x in the immediate vicinity of the low power transmission facility. An LP1000 station operating with  x[maximum facilities would be predicted, under the current protection ratios, to cause 3rdadjacent channel  xinterference t a distance of 1.4 kilometers (0.9 miles) from its antenna, and even this very small predicted  xKinterference zone could possibly pose a potential problem to other stations only if the LP1000 station were":0*$&$&,,l"  S- xlocated at, or very near, the outer edge of the protected station's service contour.;ZG {Oh- xKԍ A protected station's signal is most vulnerable to interference where it is weakest, i.e., at the outer edge of  xithe protected station's coverage area. Within the coverage area, the protected signal increases in strength as the station location is approached, thus tending to mask the effects of interference. The interference  xpotential would be even less for LP100 stations. By comparison, the 3rdadjacent channel interference  xkcontour of a maximumfacilities Class A station is 3 kilometers (1.8 miles), while such a contour for a  xmaximumfacilities Class C station is 14 kilometers (8.7 miles). In 1997, we eliminated the 3rdadjacent  xchannel protection for full power "grandfathered short spaced stations," including stations that operate at  xsubstantially higher power levels than LP1000 stations. That decision was supported by nearly all parties  S- x\filing comments in that proceeding.<G {OX - xԍ Report and Order in MM Docket No. 96120,12 FCC Rcd11840, 1184749 (1997) (Grandfathering of Short {O" -Spaced Stations R&O). We note that the decision was not supported by NAB. Additionally, no comments yet filed in this proceeding provide technical support for including this restriction.  S5-  mx+44. Relaxed interference standards for low power FM stations may be the only way to "find"  S- xsufficient spectrum in medium and larger markets to create any new viable service of 100 watts or more.=FG yO- xԍ To illustrate, suppose we were to apply minimum distance separations for LPFM stations giving protection  x equivalent to levels that full service FM stations protect each other. LP1000 stations would then have to be separated  xfrom existing 2nd and 3rd adjacent channel FM stations by approximately 31 to 96 kilometers (19 to 60 miles),  x,depending on the protected station's class. Minimum separation distances of about 17 to 65 kilometers (10.5 to 40  xmiles) would be required to protect LP1000 stations from the higher station classes. Appendix A gives the minimum separation distances for second adjacent channel protection among the various FM radio classes.   S- xFor example, staff analysis> G yO-- xԍ Appendix D suggests the extent of available spectrum in sample cities of different population groupings and under different levels of interference protection. suggests that with full protection requirements, no LP100 or LP1000 stations  xcould be authorized in Denver, Colorado. No LP1000 and only three LP100 stations could be authorized  xin Minneapolis, Minnesota. If there were no 3rdadjacent channel protection requirement, 1 LP1000 or  x4 LP100 stations might locate in Denver and perhaps 1 LP1000 or 9 LP100 stations could be located in Minneapolis.  S -  x,45. On balance, we believe that creating opportunities for new LPFM service should outweigh  xzany small risks of interference to and from LP1000 and LP100 stations. In choosing potential station  xlocations, LPFM applicants would be advised to take into account spectrum congestion considerations and  xevaluate the extent to which thirdadjacent signals could pose a problem. In most instances, we believe  x.the actual effects of such interference might well be insignificant. We seek comment and analysis on our tentative conclusion not to include 3rdadjacent channel protection requirements for any LPFM service3D-ADJ END.  S8-  ^x-46. SecondAdjacent Channel Protection Standards. FM radio stations protect other stations  x=operating on the 2ndadjacent channel where the frequency separation is 400 kHz. For example, a Class  xA station must be located at least 31 kilometers (19 miles) from another Class A station on a 2ndadjacent">0*$&$&,,"  S- x=channel and 95 kilometers (59 miles) from a Class C station on a 2ndadjacent channel.?XG yOh- xԍ For commercial FM stations authorized under the contour methodology, the required separations are slightly  xsmaller; however, the predicted field strength of a potentially interfering station can be no more than 40 dB stronger than the protected field strength along a station's protected contour. 47 C.F.R.  73.215.  We previously  xfound in the case of "grandfathered" shortspaced FM stations, that during the period in which they were  xable to modify facilities without regard to 2nd and 3rdadjacent channel spacing (19641987), we did not  Sg- xkreceive any interference complaints as a result of such modifications.e@gG {O-ԍ Grandfathering of ShortSpaced Stations R&O at 11849.e We found only a small risk of  xinterference in that context, which was outweighed by improved service. Similarly, in the noncommercial  x\service, we have been willing to accept small amounts of potential second and thirdadjacent channel  S- xinterference where such interference is counterbalanced by substantial service gains. Educational  S- xInformation Corporation, 6FCC Rcd2207 (1991).AzG yO - xԍ We seek comment on the original rationale for 2nd and 3rdadjacent channel protections and the extent to which circumstances have changed in such a way to support relaxation of these protections. We ask commenters to assess the level of risk of  xincreased interference to stations in existing FM services that would result from permitting LPFM stations  xto locate without regard to 2ndadjacent channel spacing for this service and to weigh any costs against  x>the additional service to the public that could result. Commenters should consider the likelihood and  xpotential extent of any harmful effects on current stations and listeners, taking into account the size and  x.location of the areas possibly affected and the interference immunity of the existing receiver population.  xWe also seek comment on the state of receiver technology and the ability of receivers to operate satisfactorily in the absence of 2ndadjacent channel protection.  S -  x.47. It is also important, as urged by some commenters, to take into consideration the implications  xof 2ndadjacent channel protection for the possible conversion of existing analog radio services to a digital  xmodeAPP C REF 1. While the Commission has yet to formally advance any specific proposals, it has already expressed  S9- xkits support for a conversion to digital radio.xB9G {O-ԍ Report and Order in Gen Docket No. 90357, 10 FCC Rcd 2310, 2315 (1995).x One specific proposal was recently submitted in a rule  S- x.making petition (RM9395) filed by USA Digital Radio Partners, L.P. ("USADR"),]Cd G {O -ԍ Public Notice, DA 982244 (November 6, 1998).] a terrestrial digital  x=radio proponent of a technology that uses an inbandonchannel ("IBOC") technology, in which an FM  x=radio station's analog and digital signals would share portions of the same channel. It is possible that we  xwill consider one or more variations of IBOC proposals that would use the outer "edges" of a channel's  S:- x/specified bandwidth and/or portions of the adjacent channel to transmit a digital signal.DX: G yO- xԍ For example, in USADR's proposed "FM hybrid mode," digital sidebands would occupy the "70 kHz regions  xbetween 129 and 199 kHz from the center frequency on either side of the analog spectrum." USADR Petition at 47. Appendix C also discusses the issue of secondadjacent channel protection to the IBOC signal. This signal  x=configuration would reduce the frequency separation ("guardband") that insulates between channels, and  xwe must examine how this could affect the propensity of LPFM stations to interfere with IBOC digital  xtransmissions centered on secondadjacent channels. In the existing radio environment, USADR suggests  xthat 2ndadjacent channel interference from analog FM signals would not pose an interference threat to"nD0*$&$&,,"  S-its IBOC signal.LEXG yOh- xԍ For example, USADR states that "an analog second adjacent interferer will have a negligible effect on the  xjperformance of the alldigital signal, since it does not overlap in frequency with the desired alldigital signal." USADR Petition, Appendix E at 42.L  S-  x/48. Staff analysis suggests that the current 2ndadjacent protection standards would be a  xsubstantially larger impediment to LPFM service than the 3rdadjacent standard, especially in large and  S4- xmediumsize cities.F4G yO- xԍ The extent of channel availability for LPFM service with and without a 2ndadjacent protection standard is depicted in Appendix D. As examples, two LP1000 stations could be located in Nashville, Tennessee if there  xwere no 3rdadjacent channel protection requirement and as many as ten might be possible if a 2nd  xyadjacent standard also were not required; in San Francisco, no LP100 station could be located with a 2nd xadjacent standard, but two such stations would fit if there were no need for 2nd and 3rdadjacent channel  xjprotection standards; at least one LP1000 station could be authorized in Los Angeles and Pittsburgh, but  xMonly without 2nd and 3rdadjacent channel protection standards. The inclusion or exclusion of 2nd x\adjacent channel protection requirements for LPFM stations would greatly affect the extent to which  xLPFM service could be introduced and, therefore, to the extent possible, we would prefer not to adopt any  xZsuch requirements for LPFM stations. The low ERP levels proposed for LPFM stations (especially LP100  xystations), together with a tight spectral emission mask for such stations and our proposed requirement to  S6 - xcertify transmitters,wG6 @G {O-ԍ See paras. CERTIFY35, above, and CERTIFY251, below.w should significantly reduce the potential for harmful interference to existing service 2D END , even if 2ndadjacent channel interference protections are not adopted.  S -  ?x049. We are concerned that our understanding of future IBOC IBOC DISCUSSIONsystems is preliminary and that we  xmay not be fully aware of any negative impact or restrictions that authorization of low power radio service  xwould have on the transition to a digital IBOC technology for FM stations. Clearly, we need to better  xunderstand the potential impact of secondadjacent channel LPFM protection standards on the successful  xkdevelopment of an IBOC system. Without a 2ndadjacent channel protection standard, would analog  xLP1000, LP100, and microradio stations be likely to adversely affect current IBOC designs and, if so, how  xand to what extent? What would be the effect of digital LPFM stations operating with IBOC technology?  xAre measurement results available to inform the analyses of the potential for 2ndadjacent channel  xinterference? As noted more fully below, we are interested in examining LPFM emissions and bandwidth  xlimitations as possible means of ameliorating some interference concerns. Could a strict spectral emission  xmask and/or a reduced channel bandwidth for LPFM stations play a significant role in reducing the  xpotential for interference, if there were no minimum station separation requirements for LPFM stations  xoperating on the 2ndadjacent channels to other FM stations? Conversely, could potential interference to  xdigital radio be minimized by such measures as filters and other digital receiver improvements? Would  S- xour proposal to certify transmitters, described at paragraph CERTIFY251, below, be useful in minimizing interference  x.to digital service? In this regard, we are particularly interested in the views of digital radio designers and  xmanufacturers. At this initial stage of our involvement with digital radio, we ask whether the IBOC signal  xlcould be designed to be robust against interference from lower power stations operating without a  xminimum spacing requirement on the secondadjacent channel. What design tradeoff would be involved  x>and with what implications to the effectiveness of terrestrial digital radio? In this regard, would it be"G0*$&$&,,"  xappropriate to consider standards for future digital receivers? Finally, we ask whether it would be  xjappropriate to impose a 2ndadjacent channel protection requirement on LPFM stations for the purpose  xof protecting a possible future digital radio technology, considering that creating opportunities for new  xradio service is also an important Commission goal. In this regard, we also note that, as secondary  xservices, LP100 and microradio stations would not be permitted to interfere with future digital radio stations within their protected service areas.  S-  {x150. We seek comment on whether we should consider lower interference standards for the LPFM  xLservice. A staff study, attached hereto as Appendix D, demonstrates that if LPFM stations are required  xto comply with current interference restrictions, there will be few or no licenses available in most major  ximarkets. This study also shows that we measurably increase the opportunity to engineer in LPFM stations  xyif thirdadjacent channel protection standards are eliminated and dramatically increase such opportunities  xif secondadjacent channel standards are not considered. The paucity of major market LPFM spectrum  x>under our current rules testifies to the aggressive efforts of existing broadcasters to maximize service.  xPrincipally for this reason, we are disinclined to extend reduced second and thirdadjacent channel  xprotection standards to full power FM stations. We believe that the relatively low maximum power levels  xLof the LPFM stations under consideration here support this distinction. Such stations could create only  xvery limited areas of harmful interference, especially if we impose additional technical modifications to  x.reduce their interference potential. We also note that if we were to take this step, opportunities for low  xpower stations would diminish as existing broadcasters move quickly to improve their own facilities. We seek comment on these issues.  S- E. LPFM Emissions and Bandwidth  S8-  x251. We believe that the extent to which LPFM stations would degrade FM radio service on the  x2ndadjacent channel would be considerably limited by their lower ERP and HAAT levels. In addition,  xwe seek other technical means for further reducing this interference potential. In this regard, we could  xrestrict outofchannel emissions by establishing a strict spectral emission mask and/or by reducing the  xtransmission bandwidth for LPFM stations. We are also proposing to require FCC certification  CERTIFY2 of  xLtransmitters used at all LPFM stations, which we believe would be necessary to ensure compliance with  xoutofchannel emission requirements, particularly if the LPFM service does not include 2nd and 3rd xadjacent channel protection requirements. We are vitally concerned that such stations meet transmitter  xoutofchannel emission limits and other standards related to interference protection of stations on adjacent  x.channels. We note that uncertified equipment has on numerous occasions caused dangerous interference  S:- xto aviation frequencies.]H:G {O-ԍ See, e.g., para. AVIATION65, below.] We do not believe that a certification requirement would overly burden small  S- x/operators, given the recent streamlining of our certification procedures.IZG {O -ԍ See Equipment Authorization Streamlining R&O, FCC 98338 (released Dec. 23, 1998). We seek comments on this  x>proposal, including not only on burdens of compliance, but specific harms that could result from not  xrequiring transmitter certification. We also ask whether a modulation monitor should be required or, alternatively, whether transmitters should be certified with builtin modulation limits.  S -  x352. Emission Limits. Outside of their assigned channels, the emissions of FM radio stations must  xbe attenuated below the level of the unmodulated carrier frequency: (1) by at least 25 dB at any" I0*$&$&,,'$"  xfrequency removed from the center frequency by 120 kHz up to 240 kHz; (2) by at least 35 dB at any  xfrequency removed from the center frequency by 240 kHz up to and including 600 kHz; and (3) by at  x/least 43 dB + 10log(Power, in watts) dB on any frequency removed by more than 600 kHz from the  xcenter frequency. 47 C.F.R. Section 73.317. This emission mask ensures that FM broadcast emissions are reasonably confined within the 200 kHz channel width.  S-  mx453. The center frequency of a secondadjacent channel is 400 kHz removed, and the minimum  xseparation between the channel edges of 2ndadjacent channels is 200 kHz. The current emission mask  x]requires a minimum attenuation of 35 dB below the level of the unmodulated carrier for emissions  xextending over the secondadjacent channel. We invite comment on the extent to which an increased  xemission attenuation requirement would reduce the potential for 2ndadjacent channel interference,  xassuming no 2ndadjacent channel spacing requirements. By how much would this attenuation have to  x{be increased in this regard? 10 dB? 20 dB? What would be the consequences of a more restrictive  xemissions mask for LPFM stations? For example, at what point would tighter emission limits become cost prohibitive?  S -  mx554. We recognize the difficulty in quantifying the potential benefits of emission limitations to  xfuture digital systems in the absence of standards for these systems. Nonetheless, based on what is known  xabout IBOC technology, commenters are invited to consider generally the relationship between an LPFM  x0emission mask and protection to digital signals. Could a strict emission mask for LPFM stations  xzsignificantly reduce the potential for interference to IBOC signals, presuming we did not impose 2ndadjacent channel spacing requirements on LPFM stations?  Sk-  Ax655. Bandwidth Limits. FM broadcast channels have a bandwidth of 200 kHz. The center  xfrequency of each channel is 100 kHz from the upper and lower edges of the channel, and the frequency  xmodulated ("FM") signal in each channel swings in frequency from the center frequency toward the  x>channel edges, and has its radiated power envelope shaped such that virtually all of the energy of the  xsignal is contained within the channel. The potential for interference could be further reduced if LPFM  xstations operated with a reduced bandwidth, creating additional frequency separation to adjacent channels.  x[A reduced bandwidth in combination with a strict emission mask would offer even more protection. For  S- xexample, suppose the channel bandwidth were reduced by approximately half.J G yOo- xԍ We could specify, for example, that the signals from all LPFM stations be attenuated by at least 25 dB at  xspacings of 60 kHz to 180 kHz from the channel center frequency, by at least 35 dB at spacings of 180 kHz through  xK540 kHz from the channel center frequency, and by at least 43 dB + 10log(Power, in watts)dB on any frequency removed by more than 540 kHz from the channel center frequency. This reduced bandwidth  x=would ameliorate the possible adjacent channel interference impact of new LPFM stations. By reducing  x=the bandwidth available to LPFM stations, and with the corresponding contraction in the spectral mask,  xwe believe that all types of adjacent channel interference from these stations could be significantly  x0reduced. We seek comment on the effectiveness of reduced bandwidth as an alternative means of  xzinterference protection, particularly with regard to 2ndadjacent channels. What bandwidth reduction  xwould best serve this purpose? What emission mask for a reduced channel bandwidth would be appropriate to further restrict emissions on adjacent channels?  S<-  1x756. We inquire about the operational effects of reduced bandwidth on LPFM stations. First,  xwould LPFM signals be received by existing radios; for example, car radios, home stereo systems, and" J0*$&$&,,7#"  x[boom boxes? At what level of bandwidth reduction would LPFM stations not be able to transmit stereo  xmsignals? We would be particularly concerned with the impact of a narrowed bandwidth on the  xtransmission of stereophonic sound. A narrowed channel bandwidth could also restrict or preclude the  xLuse of baseband subcarriers by LPFM operators; subcarriers are utilized by FM stations for a variety of  x[purposes. Would prospective LPFM operators be willing to sacrifice the use of subcarriers in return for  xthe ability to broadcast a narrow band radio signal? Could the loss of LPFM subcarrier services such as  xthose typically provided by full power FM stations be detrimental to the public? In seeking comment on  xpossibly narrowing the channel bandwidth for LPFM stations, we are interested in the optimal bandwidth  xthat would strike the right balance between facilitating a larger number of potential stations and optimizing  xthe services that could be offered by those stations. Commenters should address the specific stereophonic  xsound transmission standards which would be appropriate for a reduced channel bandwidth, including pilot  xNtone, L/R subcarrier, highest modulating frequency, and maximum signal deviation. Establishing a  xreduced channel bandwidth for LPFM could necessitate the development and manufacture of new lines  xMof transmitting equipment, at an unknown cost, and reduce the availability of transmitters for LPFM  xkstations, especially used transmitters designed for a 200 kHz bandwidth. We seek comment on these  x?matters and, generally, on whether any adverse effects of LPFM operations on a reduced channel bandwidth could outweigh the increased channel availability that could result.  Sj- F. Ownership and Eligibility  S-  x857. Local and Cross Ownership. We see the increased opportunity for entry, enhanced diversity,  xand new program services as the principal benefits of a new low power service. These goals may be hard,  x=if not impossible, to achieve if LPFM stations are made available to existing broadcasters, or if a number  xof the new LPFM facilities in an area are under common control. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude  xthat strict local and crossownership restrictions would be appropriate for the low power radio service.  xLFirst, we propose not to permit a person or entity with an attributable interest in a full power broadcast  xstation to have any ownership interest in any LPFM (or microradio) station in any market, and to prohibit  xyjoint sales TYPES OF ATTRIBUTIONagreements, time brokerage agreements, local marketing or management agreements, and similar  xarrangements between full power broadcasters and low power radio entities. As a corollary to this  xproposal, we are not proposing to give an application preference to AM station licensees, as urged by  xCrusading Broadcasting Ministry, Inc. and Robert M. Stevens. We do seek further comment on this issue,  x[and on whether we should permit AM licensees to file applications contingent on the divestiture of their  x>AM station in the event they are successful in obtaining an LPFM station. In addition to this cross x\ownership rule, we propose to limit multiple ownership by prohibiting any individual or entity from  xowning more than one LPFM (or microradio) station in the same community. These restrictions would  xseem to obviate any arguable benefit from the restriction urged by some commenters on the form of  S- xbusiness entity that could be an LPFM licensee.qKXG yO=- xԍ We find unpersuasive the Leggett proposals, seconded by some commenters, that would restrict the personal  xor corporate wealth of an LPFM licensee. Neither an abundance nor absence of wealth affects an individual or entity's ability to provide a potentially valuable radio service to the public.q We have used various designations for applying our  xymultiple ownership rules for full power radio services, including signal overlap, Designated Market Area,  xmand markets designated by the commercial audience ratings services. We seek comment on the  xappropriate definition of "market" or "community" for purposes of the restriction proposed here, as well as on what other interests or relationships (if any) should be attributable in the context of low power radio. " K0*$&$&,,$"Ԍ S-  x958. We seek comment on whether the proposed crossownership restriction will unnecessarily  xprevent individuals and entities with valuable broadcast experience from contributing to the success of the  xservice, or whether it is necessary to keep the service from being compromised or subsumed by existing  x[stakeholders. Commenters should also address the alternative of permitting individuals and entities with  xattributable involvement in broadcasting to establish LPFM (or microradio) stations in communities where  xthey do not have an attributable interest in a broadcast station. We also seek comment on whether the  xcrossownership restriction should be extended to prevent common ownership of LPFM or microradio stations with newspapers, cable systems, or other mass media.  S5-  x:59. We are cognizant of the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, noted by some  S- x/commenters, which permit significant local multiple ownership of existing full power stations.LG yOj - xiԍ Section 202(b) of the 1996 Act significantly relaxed the Commission's restrictions on the number of radio stations a licensee could own in individual radio markets. We  xtentatively believe, however, that those provisions would not apply to a service that did not exist in 1996.  x!We also tentatively believe that Congress's intent, to enhance commercial efficiencies in the radio  xbroadcast industry, does not sufficiently apply to the new classes of service we are contemplating.  x!Commenters should address the applicability of the relevant provisions of the 1996 Act to these  xconsiderations. They should also address whether this onestationpermarket limitation unnecessarily  x/restricts efficiencies for operators in any of the new classes of service being considered, as argued by  xsome, or rather is indeed appropriate to enhance the availability of LPFM or microradio stations, as  xinsisted by others. We also seek comment on possible cooperative arrangements (short of attributable  S7- xinterests such as discussed in paragraph TYPES OF ATTRIBUTION57, above) among LPFM licensees that might facilitate the new service's development without unduly diluting its benefits, a concern of many commenters.  S-  x;60. National Ownership. With regard to national ownership, we do not see at this time a need  xto restrict as severely the number of LPFM (or microradio) stations an individual person or entity may  xjown nationally. As with full power stations, we expect that economies of scale would allow licensees to  ximprove their service to the listening public. We expect that the nature of the service LP100 and  xmicroradio facilities provide would attract primarily local or nearby residents. Operating a group of  xLP1000 stations may provide a licensee with essential broadcasting experience to assist potential new  xjentrants in their attempts to acquire and operate full power stations. However, because competition and  S:- xdiversity have a greater impact on viewers on a local level than on a national scale,MM\: G {O- xԍ See, e.g., Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket Nos. 91221 and 878, 10 FCC Rcd 3524,  {O- x;3565 (1995) (TV Ownership Further Notice) (noting that broadcast and other outlets are viewed locally, rather than nationally).M we tentatively  xbelieve that these national efficiencies would likely outweigh the competition and diversity costs to  x=viewers. With regard to all three classes of service considered, it may be that particular issues and needs  x\that they might address recur throughout the country and can be effectively addressed, perhaps more  xjeffectively in some instances, by an operator with multiple facilities. Consistent with the proposals of a  xnumber of parties, we seek comment on whether a limit of five or ten stations nationally would provide  xa reasonable opportunity to attain efficiencies of operation while preserving the availability of these  xstations to a wide range of new applicants. Again, we are cognizant of the provisions of the 1996 Act,"DM0*$&$&,,"  S- xwhich eliminate national ownership restrictions for full power radio service,ING yOh-ԍ Section 202(a) of the 1996 Act.I and seek comment as to  xLwhether our proposals are consistent with those statutory provisions and Congress' underlying intent in adopting them.  S4-  x<61. Residency Requirements. Although urged on us by many commenters,ZO4XG {O,-ԍ E.g., CRC Petition for Rule Making at 45.Z we do not propose  S- xto establish a local residency or an "integration"PG yO -ԍ Integration is involvement by the licensee in the daytoday management of the station. requirement for any LPFM stations. Regarding LP1000  xstations, we have long recognized that full power stations require neither local residency nor integration  xbetween ownership and management to assess and address local needs and interests. Such a restriction  xwould also frustrate any attempt at achieving certain efficiencies from national multiple ownership long  S6- xMrecognized as beneficial for fullpower stations.gQX6zG yOP- xԍ While we feel that these efficiencies are outweighed with respect to local multiple ownership restrictions, we  xdo not feel there are benefits inherent in local residency or integration requirements sufficient to outweigh the efficiencies achievable through nonlocal multiple ownership.g Additionally, because the service areas for LP1000  xstations will be relatively small, a potential new entrant may hold residency in a location where no  x\LP1000 channels can be found, so that we might frustrate one of the significant potentials of LP1000  xstations with such a requirement. The same rationale can be applied to LP100 and microradio stations.  xMoreover, as noted above, we expect the nature of the service provided by the two smaller class of  xjstations would attract primarily local or nearby residents in any event. Given these suppositions, we do  xnot believe that any benefits that might accrue from such restrictions would be sufficient to warrant the  xproof and enforcement efforts that they would entail. We seek public comment on these assumptions and the resulting proposal.  S8-  x=62. We also note the probable limitations on our discretion to adopt an integration requirement.  xlIn 1992, the Commission was directed to reexamine the integration of management and ownership  xcriterion that it had traditionally used to evaluate competing applications in a comparative hearing for a  S- xnew commercial broadcast station. Bechtel v. FCC, 957 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir. 1992); see also Bechtel v.  Sm- xLFCC, 10 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The court determined that until the Commission could demonstrate  xthat application of this criterion serves the public interest, its continued use would be arbitrary and  xjcapricious. The Commission's subsequent rule making proceeding addressing this issue was still pending  xwhen the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 mandated that future mutually exclusive full power commercial  S- xLbroadcast applications be resolved through auctions. Accordingly, the proceeding was terminated. First  Sp- xLReport and Order in MM Docket 97234, GC Docket 9252, and Gen Docket No. 90264, 13 FCC Rcd  S>- x\15920 (1998) (Auctions R&O). As a result, given the court's holdings in the Bechtel cases, we believe  x=that we would require a particularly compelling record indicating that listeners would be less well served  xkby stations not managed by their owners before we could adopt an integration requirement that could withstand judicial scrutiny. We ask for comment on this analysis.  S@-  "x>63. Another residency issue concerns alien ownership. As broadcast stations, all low power  xfacilities would be subject to the statutory restrictions on alien ownership enumerated in Section 310(b)" Q0*$&$&,,"  xof the Communications Act. Thus, no license could be granted to a foreign government or a  x/representative of a foreign government; an alien or representative of an alien; a corporation organized  xunder the laws of a foreign government; or any corporation of which more than onefifth of the capital  x/stock is owned of record or voted by aliens or their representatives or by a foreign government or its  xyrepresentatives or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country. 47 U.S.C.  310(a),  x(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3). Additionally, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  310(b)(4), no license could be granted  xto "any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by any other corporation of which more than one xzfourth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens, their representatives, or by a foreign  xgovernment or representative thereof, or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country,  x{if the Commission finds that the public interest will be served by the refusal or revocation of such license."  S -  x?64. Character Qualifications and Unauthorized Broadcasters. We propose to apply the same  xstandards for character qualifications requirements to all LPFM broadcasters as we do to full power  S7 - xbroadcasters. See Policy Statement and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 3252 (1990), recon. granted in part and denied  S - xin part, 6 FCC Rcd 3448. See also Report, Order, and Policy Statement in Gen. Docket No. 81500 and  S - xLBC Docket No. 78108, 102 FCC 2d 1179 (1986), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 1 FCC Rcd  x421 (1986). We do not see any reason to distinguish between LPFM (or microradio) and other broadcast  xlicensees for this purpose. Commenters believing otherwise are invited to explain the rationale for any distinction.  S-  x@65. We note how this issue relates to the particular issue of previously and currently unlicensed  xkoperators. Unlicensed radio operators not only violate the longstanding statutory prohibition against  So- xunlicensed broadcasting=RoG yO-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  301.= and our present rules on unlicensed broadcasting,pSoXG {Og-ԍ See, e.g., Part 15 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 15.p but they also use equipment  x.of unknown technical integrity. Such illegal radio transmissions raise a particular concern because of the  xypotential for harmful interference to authorized radio operations, including public safety communications  xLand aircraft frequencies. For example, in March, 1998, the Commission closed down an unlicensed radio  xoperation in Sacramento, California, that had disrupted air traffic  AVIATION control communications on four separate  Sp- x.occasions.eTpG {O-ԍ See News Release Report No. CI 983 (March 20, 1998).e We have also shut down illegal broadcast operations that were causing harmful interference  S=-to air traffic control communications at the Miami and West Palm Beach, Florida, airports.hU=|G {OY-ԍ See News Release Report No. CI 9712 (October 24, 1997).h  S-  xA66. The Commission has repeatedly urged all unlicensed radio operators to cease broadcasting.  xWhen they have not, we have filed complaints in federal district courts to shut them down by seeking:  xj(1) injunctive relief pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  401; (2) seizure and forfeiture of the radio station equipment  xpursuant to 47 U.S.C.  510; (3) monetary forfeitures pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  503; and/or (4) criminal  xpenalties pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  501. In addition, we have issued cease and desist orders pursuant to  xM47 U.S.C.  312 to a number of unlicensed broadcasters. Nevertheless, despite repeated warnings by  S- xjCommission officials and the Commission's successes in federal district court litigation, see United States"U0*$&$&,, "  S- xv. Dunifer, 997 F.Supp. 1235 (N.D. Cal. 1998), appeal pending, No. 9915035 (9th Cir. 1999)  S- x(injunction); United States v. Any and All Radio Station Transmission Equipment, 1998 WL 884468 (E.D.  S- xNMich. 1998), appeal pending, No. 982396 (6th Cir. 1999) (seizure and forfeiture of radio station equipment), some unlicensed broadcasters have persisted in their unlawful activity.  S-  |xB67. It is well established that the Commission is rightfully concerned with "misconduct which  xkdemonstrates the proclivity of an applicant or licensee to deal truthfully with the Commission and to  S- x[comply with our rules and policies." Policy Regarding Character Qualifications in Broadcast Licensing,  xL102 FCC 2d 1179, 119091 (1986). Parties who persist in unlawful operation after the Commission has  S9- xtaken any of these enforcement actions could be deemed per se unqualified, and we seek comment as to  xthe eligibility of such parties for a license in any new radio service. We seek comment on whether there  xyare circumstances under which such a party could be considered rehabilitated. The reliability as licensees  x=of parties who may have illegally operated for a time but have ceased operation after being advised of an  xenforcement action, however, is not necessarily as suspect. We seek comment on the propriety of  xyaccepting as licensees of low power (or microradio) licenses parties who may have broadcast illegally but  S - xhave promptly ceased operation when advised by the Commission to do so,MVX G yOp- xxԍ Of course, as authorized Commission licensees, LPFM broadcasters that violate Commission rules would be  x subject to the enforcement rules (including forfeiture amounts) that apply to other broadcasters, rather than those that now apply to unlicensed operators.M or who voluntarily cease  S -operations within ten days of the publication of the summary of this Notice in the Federal Register.  Sp- G. Service Characteristics  S -  xC68. Local Programming. We seek comment on whether to impose a minimum local origination  S- xjrequirement on any of the three proposed classes of LPFM service, as proposed by some commenters.XWG {O`-ԍ E.g., CRC Petition for Rule Making at 8.X  x{Listeners benefit from local programming, since it often reflects needs, interests, circumstances, or  xperspectives that may be unique to that community, and many LPFM supporters would have the  x=Commission's rules actively promote locallyoriented programming by, for instance, limiting the amount  x of network programming. However, based on our expectation of the nature of the licensees that will  xpopulate LPFM, supported by the comments received by those expressing an interest in acquiring their  xown stations, we expect that a significant amount of programming will be locally produced as a matter  xof course. Moreover, and importantly, programming does not have to be locallyproduced to have interest  xMor value to the listeners in any particular locale. Accordingly, we are inclined to give low power (and  xmicroradio) licensees the same discretion as fullpower licensees to determine what mix of local and  xnonlocal programming will best serve the community. However, in order to promote new broadcast  xvoices, we propose that an LPFM station not be permitted to operate as a translator, retransmitting the programming of a fullpower station. We seek comment on these positions.  S-  xD69. Commercial Programming. Commenters disagree as to whether low power radio should be  xlimited to noncommercial operation. We seek comment on this issue. LP1000 stations may need to  xgenerate revenue in order to remain operational. Some LP100 stations might sell some form of advertising  xto subsidize their operation and could possibly provide a useful advertising alternative for certain types  xof neighborhood businesses that cannot utilize fullpower radio stations due to their expense and their"CzW0*$&$&,,e""  x/broader geographic targeting. Similarly, noncommercial licensees might attempt to seek underwriting  xfunds from neighborhood groups and businesses. Some commenters contend that a noncommercial  xrestriction would increase the amount of "quality" programming available to the public. Others contend  xthat a noncommercial limitation would increase the availability of such stations to educational institutions.  xWe seek comment on whether programming on these stations should be strictly noncommercial and  xLwhether our current eligibility rules are appropriate, which permit educational and nonprofit community  xLorganizations to become licensees. However, should we not impose such a broad limitation, we note the  xKpossibility that part of the FM band will remain reserved for noncommercial LPFM operators, as discussed  Sh- xabove at paragraph RESERVED BAND19. This would ensure that a significant portion of low power radio facilities would be noncommercial in nature.  S-  xE70. Public Interest Programming Requirements. Because they would be primary stations with  xpotentially substantial coverage areas, we propose to require LP1000 licensees to adhere to the same Part  x73 requirements regarding public interest broadcasting as apply to full power FM licensees. Most  ximportantly, this means that each LP1000 licensee would be required to air programming serving the needs  S - xand interests of its community (as community is defined in paragraph DEFINE COMMUNITY71, below), using its discretion as  xLto how to meet that obligation. As more specific examples, LP1000 station operators would be required  xto comply with programmingrelated rules regarding the broadcasting of: (1) taped, filmed, or recorded  Sk- x<material;AXkG yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  73.1208.A (2) lottery information;AYkXG yOc-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  73.1211.A (3) sponsorship identification;AZkG yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  73.1212.A (4) personal attacks;A[kxG yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  73.1920.A and (5) periodic  S8-call sign announcements.A\8G yO-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  73.1201.A  S-  xF71. We seek comment on this proposal. In this regard, we also note that we have not proposed  x=to allocate low power services to specific communities in the way that full power radio stations are, and  xsignal coverage limitations would make such designations problematic. We propose that an LP1000  xlicensee's service obligations pertain to those listeners within DEFINE COMMUNITYits predicted 1 mV/m signal contour in the same way that full power radio station must serve the listeners in its community of license.  S-  xG72. We expect the very nature of LP100 and microradio stations will ensure that they serve the  x]public. Therefore, we are disinclined to put the burdens of complying with specific programming  x-requirements on these licensees, particularly given the size of the operations we envision and the simplicity  xwe are striving for in this service. We note that commenters that have addressed this issue in response  x[to the Leggett and Skinner petitions generally do not believe that the Commission should impose and try  xjto monitor specific public interest programming requirements for low power radio broadcasters, with the  x]exception of licensees that would provide a service equivalent to the LP1000 service that we have  x=proposed. We seek comment on this issue as it applies to each level of low power or microradio service we might adopt."\0*$&$&,,"Ԍ S-  ԙxH73. Other Service Rules. We also request comment on whether LPFM stations of each class  xshould be subject to the variety of other rules in Part 73 with which full power stations must comply,  xincluding, for example, the main studio rule (47 C.F.R.  73.1125(a)), public file rule (47 C.F.R.  x73.3526, 73.3527), and the periodic ownership reporting requirements (47 C.F.R.  73.3615). Given  xthe purposes and power levels of LP1000 stations, we tentatively conclude that LP1000 licensees should  xgenerally meet the Part 73 rules applicable to full power FM stations. However, we seek comment on  xwhether sufficient useful purpose would be served in applying each rule to these licensees. We would  xybe disinclined to apply these service rules to microradio stations, and we particularly seek comment with  xregard to the rules appropriate for LP100 stations. Commenters are invited to discuss which existing rules  xLshould apply or what new or modified rules would be more appropriate. Where a rule should not apply  xyto a particular class of service, commenters should analyze the characteristics of that service that warrant disparate treatment for the purposes of that rule.  Sj -  xI74. We also propose to treat low power radio stations like full power stations for the purposes  S7 - xjof our environmental rules and responsibilities under the National Environmental Protection Act.K]7 G yO -ԍ 47 C.F.R.  1.13011.1319.K With  xirespect to protection against exposure to radiofrequency radiation, we note that LP1000 and LP100 stations  xwould operate at the power levels of some Class A FM stations, and thus the same safety and  xenvironmental concerns would seem to apply. We therefore propose to apply to these stations the  x[maximum permissible exposure limits and related regulatory provisions that apply to FM radio stations.  x.We invite comment on this matter, and specifically on whether and how we should treat LP100 stations  xdifferently from LP1000 stations and, if so, why. We also seek comment on how our environmental rules should apply to microradio stations, if this low power radio class is adopted.  Sl-  ]xJ75. We also seek comment on the applicability of the various political programming rules to each  xclass of low power service we might adopt. There are two statutory provisions explicitly underlying some  S- x[of these rules, and each is explicitly applicable to "broadcasting stations."^ XG yO- x-ԍ 47 U.S.C  312(a)(7) requires broadcast licensees to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of air time by  xa legally qualified candidate for Federal elective office. 47 U.S.C.  315 requires that a broadcast station that permits  xLany legally qualified candidate for (any) public office to use the station (with the exception of specified news coverage), must then afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office. Thus, we lack the discretion  xjnot to apply these provisions to any class of LPFM station, regardless of its size. We seek comment on  xhow each of these political broadcasting rules should be applied to low power stations, taking into consideration our statutory mandate.  S-  xK76. Operating Hours. We are sympathetic with the position of some commenters that the market,  xnot the Commission, should determine the hours a station operates. However, the Commission has  xzdetermined that a minimum operating hours requirement for full power FM stations serves the public  x=interest, and the LP1000 class is intended to be similar to full power FM in many respects. Because we  x=intend LP1000 stations to help new entrants eventually participate in the full power radio industry, and  xbecause these stations may be able to compete with full power stations, we propose to require them to  x[maintain the same minimum hours of operation as are required of the lowest class of fullpower stations: "@^0*$&$&,,"  S-generally two thirds of their authorized hours between 6a.m. and midnight.r_G {Oh-ԍ See 47C.F.R. 73.1740; see also, 47C.F.R. 73.561.r  S-  nxL77. With respect to LP100 and microradio stations, however, a combination of their lesser  x.spectrum utilization, the nature of the anticipated licensees and their services, and practical enforcement  xconcerns suggests at this time that a minimum operating schedule should not be established unless and  xuntil it is shown to be necessary. Such a determination could also be affected by whether we designate  xzthese as secondary services. Should we determine after an initial period of operation that spectrum is  xbeing inappropriately underutilized by LP100 or microradio stations and that spectrum is being wasted  Sh- x(i.e., that LPFM stations are not actually broadcasting very often yet are preventing others from utilizing  xtheir frequencies), we could then revisit the issue. Commenters are urged to address the efficacy of our  xproposals and their practicality for both licensees and the Commission's licensing and enforcement functions.  Sj -  xM78. Construction, License Terms, Sales, and Renewals. We wish to provide ample time for  xconstruction, while providing for prompt introduction of service and discouraging speculative or  xinsufficiently thought out applications. We wish to adopt limits that will obviate any need or justification to consider extensions of the construction permits we expect to issue.  Sl-  xN79. Supporters of low power radio who discuss these issues suggest several different rules  xregarding construction periods, license terms, and renewals, ranging from relatively short license terms  x=(such as four years) with provisions for renewal, to long terms (such as 14 years) with no renewal. One  xbroadcaster suggests that construction permits be limited to 12 months, without possibility of extensions  xor transfer to another party. The Community Radio Coalition also contends that low power (or  xmicroradio) construction permits should not be transferable, in order to discourage trafficking in  S:-construction permits and speculative applications.L`:ZG yO4-ԍ CRC Petition for Rule Making at 5.L  S-  xO80. We propose construction periods that vary with the class of service and complexity of  xfacilities. We initially believe that LP1000 stations should have the same construction period, and  Sn- x[restriction on extensions, as fullpower radio stations.+anG {O- xԍ See Report and Order in MM Dockets Nos. 9843 and 94149, FCC 98281 (released November 25, 1998)  {O-("NonTechnical Broadcasting Streamlining R&O"), providing a three year construction period for new radio stations.+ While most of these stations should be easier to  x|build than most full power stations, we expect that most LP1000 applicants may be relatively  xinexperienced in building broadcast facilities. We believe that LP100 and microradio stations should be  xkable to be constructed in much less time and propose an eighteenmonth construction limit for LP100  xstations and a twelvemonth limit for microradio stations. Both of these latter proposals assume a  xkminimum of zoning or building permit delays. We question whether the proposed short construction  x0period for LP100 and microradio applicants would encourage them to construct relatively simple  xbroadcasting apparatus that would not entail significant zoning and building considerations. Given the  xsimplicity of the application process we hope to adopt for these services, such a process should not be  xburdensome on the applicants or the Commission and should help to ensure the prompt initiation of new  xservice. Also, we seek comment on the Community Radio Coalition's proposal CRC PETITIONto prohibit the transfer"pFa0*$&$&,,!" of low power radio construction permits in light of the ownership and construction terms proposed.  S-  xP81. With regard to any construction period adopted for each service, we envision a strict  Sg- xenforcement of the deadline, as with other radio services.3bgG {O-ԍ Id.3 We seek comment on the sufficiency of the  xconstruction periods proposed here to accomplish these goals. Commenters are also invited to address  xhow Section 319(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, affects the rules that we will adopt  x0for low power radio service. Pursuant to this statutory provision, a construction permit "will be  xautomatically forfeited if the station is not ready for operation within the time specified or within such  xfurther time as the Commission may allow, unless prevented by causes not under the control of the grantee." 47 U.S.C.  319(b).  S-  "xQ82. We propose that LP1000 stations follow the Part 73 rules applicable to fullpower radio  xstations with regard to the length of their license terms and renewal procedures. However, we ask if there  xis some regard in which their renewal process could be further simplified appropriate to their status and  xjthe nature of their service, consistent with statutory requirements. If there is little specific regulation for  xLP100 and microradio stations, we query how often and how closely we should actively monitor their  S - xperformance, within the parameters of our statutory responsibility.ucX ZG yO- xԍ Section 307(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 307(a), provides for the grant  xof any application, including a renewal application, if the public convenience, interest, or necessity will be served, and Section 307(c)(1) provides for maximum license terms of eight years.u Would a pro forma process satisfy  xany statutory requirement, in the absence of specific public complaint, for the new classes of stations contemplated here?  S-  xR83. While one goal of LP1000 stations could be to provide an entry opportunity, and thus the  xjprospect of periodic renewal may be appropriate to encourage the investment of time, money, and effort  xto build a successful enterprise, we are open to comment on whether stations in other classes should be  xauthorized for finite nonrenewable periods, such as five or eight years, so that others may eventually take  xtheir turns at the microphone. (An existing operator could, of course, reapply for a station where there  xis not another (new) applicant.) Making broadcast outlets available to more speakers is a fundamental  x[premise of this rule making effort, and we do not expect that such a limitation would discourage the very  xmodest investment required to build such a station, particularly if the assets would be readily transferable.  x.We seek comment on whether the disruption of service to the public outweighs the potential benefits of  xmaking this service available to more speakers on a consecutive basis. Our decision may be influenced  xMby the number of low power stations we expect to be able to authorize under the rules we ultimately adopt. We seek comment on these proposals and on their underlying premises.  Sn-  #xS84. We also seek comment on whether a finite, nonrenewable license period for LP100 or  xmicroradio stations would contravene Congress' intention in adopting statutory provisions that provide for  xa "renewal expectancy" for broadcast stations. Section 309(k)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as  xamended, states that "[i]f the licensee of a broadcast station submits an application to the Commission for  xyrenewal of such license, the Commission shall grant the application" unless the station has not served the  xjpublic interest, the licensee has committed serious violations of the Communications Act or Commission  xregulations, or the licensee has violated the Act or the Commission's rules in such a manner as to"< zc0*$&$&,,e""  xjconstitute a pattern of abuse. 47 U.S.C.  309(k)(1). We tentatively believe that this provision does not  xdirect the Commission to accept renewal applications for all broadcast services, but instead sets the  x\standards for the Commission to follow when it chooses to accept renewal applications for a service.  x\However, we recognize that this interpretation might not be consistent with Congress's intent to give  xbroadcasters greater assurance that their licenses would be renewed. Therefore, we ask commenters to address our interpretation.  S-  xT85. A similar issue is raised with Section 307(c) of the Act, which states that each broadcast  xlicense shall be granted "for a term not to exceed 8 years. Upon application therefor, a renewal of such  xlicense may be granted . . . if the Commission finds that the public interest, convenience, and necessity  xwould be served thereby." 47 U.S.C.  307(c). We ask commenters to address whether nonrenewable licenses would be inconsistent with this statutory provision.  Si -  xU86. Given the ownership restrictions proposed here, we do not believe it is necessary or  S6 - xappropriate to restrict the sale of any class of microradio station, as urged by some commenters.]d6 G {O -ԍ See, e.g., CRC Petition for Rule Making at 5.] These  xparties are concerned that service will be delayed by speculative applications and trafficking in  xconstruction permits. A significant market for trafficked construction permits might develop if there were  xnumerous parties waiting to purchase large numbers of LPFM construction permits soon after their  xissuance to the initial permittees. This ready market might encourage the filing of speculative applications.  xLHowever, we expect that the strict ownership rules we have proposed would not allow such a market to  xMdevelop, because of the limits on LPFM stations that a party could own. Commenters are invited to  xaddress this issue, including whether restrictions on sales would be advisable if the Commission adopts ownership rules other than as proposed above.  S8-  xV87. Emergency Alert System. Since we expect LP1000 facilities to reach a significant number  xof people, we propose to treat them like full power FM stations for the purposes of the Emergency Alert  S- xSystem (EAS).eZG yO- x;ԍ We would amend Section 11.11(a) of our rules, 47 C.F.R.  11.11(a), to add LPFM operators to the category of licensees subject to the EAS rules. In this way, we would expect to avoid having significant numbers of people deprived  x0of this critical information resource. By contrast, due to their extremely small coverage areas and  xLprobably very small audiences, as well as their limited resources, we propose that microradio stations, if  xadopted, not be required to participate in the EAS. We request comment on these proposals. We also  x-request commenters to address how LP100 stations, with their intermediate size and audience reach, should fit into the EAS structure.  Sn-  xW88. Station Identification. We ask commenters whether we should adopt a call sign system that  xwould identify a low power radio station as such. This was our policy for low power television ("LPTV")  xkstations for many years. As a result, LPTV stations did not use the fourletter call sign identification  x[system used by full power stations. However, we note that the Commission eventually determined that  xthe public interest would be served by allowing LPTV stations to use call signs that were like those of  Sp- xyfull power stations; the call sign itself need not identify a station as a low power facility.zfpG {O$-ԍ See First Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93114, 9 FCC Rcd 2555 (1994).z Commenters"p!Df0*$&$&,,!"  xshould explain whether the local population benefits by having an LPFM station's status identified through its call sign.  Sg-  !xX89. Inspection by the Commission and Compliance with Its Rules. The Commission has a strong  x\interest in ensuring that all licensed facilities operate safely and in compliance with the Commission's  xyrules. Therefore, we propose to apply Section 73.1225 of our rules, regarding stations inspections, to all  xMclasses of LPFM stations: As with full power broadcast stations, all LPFM stations would be made  x[available for inspection by Commission representatives at any time during their business hours or at any  xLtime they are in operation. We stress that, as with all broadcast services, the licensee is the party that is responsible for operation of the station and for its full compliance with all Commission rules.  S-  "xY90. Section 74.1203, 47 C.F.R.  74.1203, provides for the Commission to immediately shut  xdown FM translator and booster stations, which are secondary, if they cause any actual impermissible  xinterference. We seek comment on whether similar provisions should apply to LP100 and microradio stations if authorized as secondary services.  S - H. Applications  Sk-  mxZ91. Electronic Filing. We are proposing to require that LPFM and microradio applications be  S9- xfiled electronically.g9G {O- xԍ We have recently announced that we will require electronic filing of fullpower FM applications. Non {Ok-Technical Broadcasting Streamlining R&O. We intend that a substantial number of people would be able to locate and afford  xto construct LP1000 and LP100 stations, and would expect that an even greater number would be able  xto do so for microradio stations. Moreover, we have seen concrete evidence of significant interest from  xmembers of the public who want to start their own LPFM and microradio stations. As a result, we expect  xto receive a great number of applications, should the new service be authorized. For each application, the  xCommission would have to determine whether the frequency requested is available and whether it is  xmutually exclusive with any other application. In order to speed the introduction of this service to the listening public, it is critical that we have the capacity to process the applications promptly and efficiently.  Sn-  x[92. We note that internet access is becoming more common, and that interested parties will almost  xcertainly have access to the internet at their homes, public libraries, or other publicly accessible places.  xWe seek comment on both the utility and propriety of a mandatory electronic filing system for LPFM and  xkmicroradio, taking these factors into consideration, as well as the effect of such a system in promptly  xdetermining, and perhaps avoiding, mutual exclusivity of applications, as further discussed below. We  x{seek information from commenters regarding the experiences in other services which have adopted  xelectronic filing, particularly the availability of internet access for electronic filing and the reliability of  xthe process, and their view of the relevance of that experience to what we have proposed here and the likely applicants for LPFM channels.  Sp-  x\93. We receive some guidance in this determination from our experience with low power  S=- xtelevision. This new service was first contemplated in 1978 when a Notice of Inquiry was issued.qh=$G {O$-ԍ Notice of Inquiry in BC Docket No.78253, 68 FCC 2d 1525 (1978).q  xWhen we subsequently proposed LPTV rules in 1980, we also established procedures for filing" "h0*$&$&,,F#"  xNapplications through the end of the rule making process, and began accepting and processing such  S- xapplications while the proceeding was still pending.iG {O5- x;ԍ Notice of Proposed Rule Making in BC Docket No. 78253, 82 FCC 2d 47 (1980); Interim Processing Order 48 RR 2d 291 (1980). However, by 1984, despite the establishment of  xa partial filing freeze on LPTV applications, a backlog of 37,000 applications had been accumulated, the  Sg- xoverwhelming majority of which were mutually exclusive.jg"G {O)-ԍ See Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 86286, 104 FCC 2d 1368 (1986). The difficulties encountered in resolving the  x=mutual exclusivities greatly hampered the nationwide introduction of this new service, and stations were  xslow to build even once they were authorized to do so. By 1986, while 1,675 LPTV stations had been  S-authorized, only a fraction of those had actually been constructed.3kG {O" -ԍ Id.3  Sh-  x]94. However, in the intervening period, technology for electronic filing has developed which can  xameliorate this potential problem. Electronic filing has already been instituted for other services, and it  S- xhas been authorized by the Commission for broadcast services.\lFG {O-ԍ NonTechnical Broadcasting Streamlining R&O.\ For low power and microradio services,  xsuch a system could represent tremendous savings in personnel for the Commission and a concomitant  x increase, by several orders of magnitude, in the speed of delivery of new service. Without electronic  xfiling, the Commission lacks the resources to promptly accomplish the necessary data entry for hundreds or thousands of LPFM (and, possibly, microradio) applications.  S -  x^95. Accordingly, we propose to develop an electronic filing system for LPFM (and microradio)  x\whereby applicants would submit their applications by email. We may be able to develop a system  xwhereby the application could first be analyzed against existing facilities and, perhaps, even against  xypreviously filed applications. Such a system could then promptly inform the filer whether the requested  x>frequency is AVAILABLE?available and if the application is acceptable for filing based on current data. If we use a  xwindow filing system for low power applications, the system could allow an applicant to avoid submitting  xa conflicting application and thus avoid mutual exclusivity and the delay which resolving such exclusivity  xmight entail. The system could not, of course, alert an applicant as to subsequently filed mutually  xexclusive applications, but reducing conflicting applications, even if not eliminating them altogether, could  S- xsignificantly assist the roll out of any new low power service.mG yO}- xZԍ We would treat LPFM and microradio stations the same as full power FM stations for the purposes of the  x["quiet zones" established in Section 73.1030 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1030. The rule defines a  xprotected area around the National Radio Astronomy Observatory site located at Green Bank, Pocohantas County,  xWest Virginia and at the Naval Radio Research Observatory at Sugar Grove, Pendleton County, West Virginia.  x-Section 73.1030(b) defines a protected area around the Table Mountain Radio Receiving Zone, Boulder County, Colorado. Section 73.1030(c) defines protected areas around Commission monitoring stations. With respect to subsequently filed  xmutually exclusive applications, we could attempt to devise a system whereby all applications filed during  xLa particular window are analyzed in a batch, with the resulting mutually exclusive applications identified  xand posted on a web page. As a further benefit, even if pending applications cannot be instantaneously  xadded to the data base and available for comparison, an applicant would not have to hire an engineer to"9#P m0*$&$&,,"  xdetermine which frequencies were available based on existing authorizations. Moreover, the filing system  xcould also be designed to assist applicants in determining HAAT or appropriate derating of permissible  xtransmit power. This could be particularly important for applicants that might not otherwise have the  x=finances to enter broadcasting. Parties wishing to operate LPFM (or microradio) facilities would benefit substantially, and the public would receive service far earlier than it would otherwise.  S-  ^x_96. Filing Windows/Mutual Exclusivity. We are proposing to adopt a processing system with  xshort windows of only a few days each for the filing of applications. We ask for comment on whether  xthis would have advantages over longer windows and over a firstcome, firstserve procedure. We also request comment on the optimal duration of any window that might be adopted.  S-  x`97. We expect that short filing windows would lessen the occurrence of mutually exclusive  x applications and speed service to the public. We are concerned, however, about whether short filing  xywindows would result in a flood of applications in a short period that would be so great as to overwhelm any filing system we might be reasonably able to devise.  S -  xa98. We note that electronic filing might give us the capacity to ascertain the precise sequence in  xwhich applications are submitted by different parties. This would allow us to use a firstcome, firstserve  x!filing system, thereby preventing the accumulation of numerous mutually exclusive applications.  xHowever, as discussed below, such a system may have costs, limitations, and inequities that might be avoided by the use of filing windows.  S-  xb99. Establishment of a firstcome process would be dependent on the ability of a system to  ximmediately add application information to its database and process application information very quickly.  xA primary intended benefit of a firstcome, firstserve electronic filing system would be that a party filing  xan application mutually exclusive with one filed even a moment earlier could be rejected as unacceptable  xfor filing. Depending on the number and timing of LPFM and microradio applications received, such a  xLprocess might avoid imposing a considerable burden and expense on the Commission and the applicants,  x/and very greatly speed the initiation of new service. However, we are not certain at this point that a  xsystem could be constructed which would handle the large volume of applications in a short period of time  x[that might result from this rule making and such a filing priority. Users might then have to wait in a long  xprocessing queue while the system processes previously submitted applications. Such a queue would not  xzprevent us from determining the exact time or sequence that an application was submitted. However,  xpotential applicants would lose the significant advantage over filing windows of immediately knowing  xwhether their applications are acceptable for filing. In addition, the processing queue might continue to  xgrow longer and longer, despite the fact that applications at the front were being processed expeditiously.  xThis would likely serve only to frustrate applicants who might have to wait for extremely long periods  x=of time without knowing if their applications were acceptable for filing. With a filing window, however,  xthe Commission could choose to accept new LPFM applications only once all of the previouslyfiled ones  xhad been fully processed, thereby shortening the period of time that members of the public might have to wait to learn the status of their applications.  S!-  xc100. We also recognize that internet service is less convenient or immediately available for some  x.potential applicants than for others, and that internet providers are sometimes erratic. This could result  xin inequities to some applicants that are disadvantaged by a poor internet connection, and we would have  xto weigh this concern against the potential benefits of such a process to applicants in general and to the  xLpublic. Our consideration of this matter would include our statutory "obligation in the public interest to"$$m0*$&$&,,n("  x.continue to use engineering solutions, negotiation, threshold qualifications, service regulations, and other  x?means in order to avoid mutual exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings." 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(6)(E).  S4-  ?xd101. Therefore, commenters should address whether it would be more practical and equitable for  xzapplicants or would better serve the listening public to use filing windows, as proposed, to determine  xapplication priority and mutual exclusivity. Mutually exclusive applications filed within the relevant time  xperiod would be resolved by whatever legal method we determine would best serve the public interest,  Sh- xksubject to statutory constraints.nhG yO- xԍ In other radio and television broadcast services, the Commission accepts construction permit applications only during specified filing windows, as determined by the staff. Our LPFM proposal is similar. At the end of the filing window, the Commission would notify all  xparties whose applications are mutually exclusive. We are concerned that a longer filing window would  xalso increase the number of mutually exclusive applications filed. If such mutual exclusivity is resolved  xby auction (a possibility that is discussed below), many of the primary beneficiaries of the new low power radio service might not be able to afford a station.  S6 -  xe102. We note our concern that while a strict firstcome system might result in an initial crush of  xapplications that could overload any system we devise, a window period might only delay the same  xNonslaught of applications until the end of the window period. We seek comment on this concern,  xincluding the extent to which experience in other recent new services, such as low power television, can  xNbe considered relevant in light of an electronic filing system. Also, we ask commenters to suggest  x\whether and why the ability to use the electronic filing system to search for available channels would  xdiminish the number of mutually exclusive applications filed under a system of consecutive, fairly short  xzwindow periods, at least until only one channel remains. In addressing this issue, commenters should  xassess the likelihood and extent that a firstcome, firstserve procedure would provide for a prompt and  xfar less burdensome initiation of service. Commenters should also address the relative equities or other  xbenefits of a window filing system. We seek comment not only on the appropriate window, if any, for  x[determining mutually exclusive applications in the context of electronic application filing, but also on the appropriate filing window(s) in the absence of an electronic filing system.  Sl-  !xf103. Resolving Mutually Exclusive Applications. Both petitions for rule making propose the use  xof lotteries to resolve mutual exclusivity among applications, with Skinner specifically referring to the  xlottery method previously used to award low power television licenses. Many other commenters,  xespecially individuals from outside the industry, oppose the use of auctions to resolve mutually exclusive  x=applications and agree with petitioners' lottery advocacy or suggest methods to reduce the occurrence of  Sn- x.mutually exclusive applications, such as a letterperfect application standard or firstcome processing.]on G {O.-ԍ See, e.g., CRC Petition for Rule Making at 6.]  xMOpponents of the low power radio petitions assert that the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 appears to  S-mandate auctions if we must resolve mutually exclusive applications for microbroadcasting.JpG {OZ"-ԍ E.g., Press Comments at 5.J  S-  xg104. We tentatively conclude that auctions would be required if mutually exclusive applications  xfor commercial LPFM facilities were filed. Section 3002(a)(1) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997"o%Dp0*$&$&,,!"  xspecifically amended the Commission's auction authority under Section 309(j) of the Communications Act  xMto include commercial broadcast applicants for the first time. Amended Section 309(j) provides that,  xexcept for licenses for certain public safety noncommercial services and for certain digital television  xkservices and noncommercial educational or public broadcast stations, "the Commission shall grant the  xlicense or permit to a qualified applicant through a system of competitive bidding . . . [i]f . . . mutually  xexclusive applications are accepted for any initial license or construction permit." Balanced Budget Act  S- xof 1997,  3002(a)(1), codified as 47 U.S.C.  309(j). In addition, Section 3002(a)(2), codified as 47  xU.S.C.  309(i), amends Section 309(i) to terminate the Commission's authority to issue any license  x>through the use of a system of random selection after July 1, 1997, except for licenses or permits for  S6- xystations defined by Section 397(6) of the Communications Act (i.e., noncommercial educational or public broadcast stations).  S -  xh105. The First Report and Order in MM Docket 97234, 13 FCC Rcd 15920 (1998) ("Auctions  Sl - xOrder") sets the standards for auctions for broadcast stations. That document discusses the applicability  xlof auctions to secondary services not mentioned in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, such as FM  S - xtranslators, and concludes that the list in the Act is illustrative, not exhaustive. Id. at 15924. However,  xthere is no discussion of the applicability of the auction requirement to newly created services such as the  x[ones we are exploring in the instant case. Commenters are welcome to address whether these low power  xand microradio stations could be excluded from the auctions requirement of Section 309(j) consistent with  xLlegislative intent, and what other method we have the legal authority to use to resolve mutual exclusivity when it arises.  S-  xi106. We note in this connection that under Section 309(j)(6)(E) of the Act, the Commission has  xthe "obligation, in the public interest, to continue to use engineering solutions, threshold qualifications,  xservice regulations, and other means in order to avoid mutual exclusivity in application and licensing  xproceedings." We agree with those commenters that, considering the nature of this service, especially the  xzextremely low power involved for LP100 and microradio service, we have an obligation under the Act  xto explore other means to avoid mutual exclusivity prior to ordering competitive bidding for the LPFM  xlicenses. We seek comment on the various methods we could use to avoid mutual exclusivity in this  xservice, including the strict firstcome procedure that could be used in conjunction with electronic filing, as discussed above.  S-  xj107. In the event that auctions are held to resolve mutually exclusive applications, the Mass  xMedia Bureau and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, pursuant to delegated authority, will seek  S?- xcomment on and establish an appropriate auction design methodology prior to the auction.Oq?G {O-ԍ See Auctions Order at 1596768.O We seek  xkcomment on alternatives or modifications to the auction procedure which could promote localism and  S- xcommunity involvement by low power and microradio stations. The Auctions Order sets forth new filing  xrequirements which replace the previous filing procedures with a specific time period, or auction window,  St- xduring which all applicants seeking to participate in an auction must file their applications.@rtZG {On"-ԍ Id. at 1597273.@ Prior to any  x]broadcast auction, the Bureau will release, pursuant to delegated authority, an initial public notice  x.announcing an upcoming auction and specifying when the window for filing to participate in the auction" &r0*$&$&,,F#"  S- xwill open and how long it will remain open.=sG {Oh-ԍ Id. at 15973.= Initially, prospective bidders will electronically file a  xshortform application, along with any engineering data necessary to determine mutual exclusivity in a  S- x>particular service.GtZG {O-ԍ Id. at 1597476, 15977.G Once the auction is completed, a longform application will be filed.=uG {O&-ԍ Id. at 15984.= We seek  xcomment on the extent to which these procedures are appropriate for this new service and, specifically,  xhow they could be modified to accommodate a firstcome, firstserve filing procedure, if we choose to utilize one.  S-  xk108. Licenses for noncommercial stations are specifically exempted from auction by the statute.  x47 U.S.C.  309(j)(2)(C). In the event that we decide to classify all LPFM stations or those in the  xnoncommercial part of the band (channels 201220) as noncommercial, as discussed above, we seek  x.comment on the appropriate selection methodology for applications for such channels that are mutually  xexclusive. We note that the Commission has the authority to resolve mutually exclusive noncommercial  x]broadcast applications by lottery. 47 U.S.C.  309(i). We also seek comment on the appropriate  xjprocedure to resolve mutual exclusivity between commercial and noncommercial applications, should the  S6 - xzoccasion arise. In a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket No. 9531, 13 FCC Rcd  x21167 (1998), we explored possible selection criteria and procedures for noncommercial educational  xMapplicants for fullpower FM service, and commenters are invited to address the issues raised in that  S - xFurther Notice. To the extent that suggestions in this proceeding differ from the comments submitted in  Sl- xresponse to that Further Notice, commenters should provide a rationale for disparate treatment of fullpower and low power applicants.  S- I. International Notification  Sn-  0xl109. The 1991 Canada-USA FM Broadcasting Agreement provides for low power FM stations.  xyUnder the terms of the Agreement, stations would be permitted to operate with a maximum of 250 watts  x=ERP and a 34 dBu F(50,10) interfering contour not to exceed 60 km. They would be secondary services  x!and would be coordinated only if the interfering contour crosses the common border. LP100 and  xmicroradio would be coordinated under these regulations as needed. There are currently no provisions  xin the Canada-USA FM Agreement to provide for primary low power service of 1 kW, as is proposed for  xLP1000 service. Accordingly, such stations would have to be coordinated with Canada under the 6 kW Class A specification unless and until alternative provisions are adopted.  S-  xm110. The 1992 USA-Mexico FM Broadcast Agreement also provides for low power FM stations.  x\Under the terms of this Agreement, a station would be permitted to operate with specific parameters  xdepending on the station's distance from the common border. Stations which are less than 125km from  xthe common border may operate with a maximum of 50 watts ERP, an interfering contour not to exceed  x?32 km, and a protected 60 dBu F(50,50) contour not to exceed 8.7km in the direction of Mexico.  xStations which are greater than 125km from the common border may operate with greater than the above  xparameters in the direction of Mexico provided that the protected contour does not extend greater than  x 8.7km, starting from the 125km point. Microradio stations would fall under the above criteria, and">'~u0*$&$&,,e""  x.LP100 stations would require possible restrictions on domestic standards in order to abide by the above  xregulations for coordination purposes with Mexico. There are currently no provisions in the USA-Mexico  xFM Agreement to provide for primary low power service of 1 kW, as is proposed for LP1000 service.  xThese stations would have to be coordinated with Mexico under the 3 kW Class A specification, unless and until alternative provisions are adopted.  S-  |xn111. Under both the Canada and Mexico FM Agreements, low power and microradio stations  xoperate on the basis of not causing interference to existing and future primary assignments. These low  x=power stations receive protection according to their date of notification and acceptance only from future  S5-low power assignments.  S-i& IV. SUMMARY ă  Si -  xo112. With this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, we explore the possible establishment of new  xclasses of FM radio service to respond to the increasing demand by the public for additional outlets of  xpopular expression which could increase the diversity of voices, views, and sources of information and  xentertainment available to the American public. This proceeding will explore the appropriate technical  xparameters for such a service. We will also examine potentially conflicting demands for such a service  x.and the means to accommodate any such conflicting demands to the extent possible and appropriate. In  xaddressing these issues, we are and will remain mindful of the technical requirements necessary to protect  xexisting radio services and are concerned with preserving the excellent technical quality of radio service  xNavailable today which has been fostered and maintained by our existing rules. We hope to receive  xcomment from a wide range of existing and potential users of the FM spectrum regarding the nature and  xjextent of different and possibly conflicting demands for this spectrum, and technical analysis to assist us in best resolving those conflicts for the benefit of the public. T S-^ V. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ĐTP  Sm-  Oxp113. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This Notice proposes the creation of a new,  S;- xlow power FM radio broadcast service. Implementation of this service (e.g., issuing construction permits,  xgranting license assignment applications) may involve an information collection requirement. We estimate  xthat at least several hundred parties may apply to construct LPFM facilities, and we may in the future  xreceive numerous license renewal and sales applications. In addition, depending on the rules ultimately  xadopted, at least some licensees may be required to complete several forms that full power radio broadcasters submit, such as Forms 323 and 323E (Ownership).  S-  xq114. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public  xNand the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") to take this opportunity to comment on the  xjinformation collection that might be required, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub.  S>- xL. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice  S - x(i.e., April 12, 1999); OMB comments are also due April 12, 1999. Comments should address: (a)  x[whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions  xLof the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the  xCommission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information  xcollected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents,  xincluding the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition  xLto filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained"$(u0*$&$&,,n("  xherein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room C-1804, 445 12th  xStreet, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB  x.Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t @al.eop.gov.  S-  xr115. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the  xCommission's rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before April  x@12, 1999, and reply comments on or before May 12, 1999. Comments may be filed using the  Si- xCommission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing  S7-of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).  S-  Axs116. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to  x=. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include  xtheir full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties  xmay also submit an electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions for email  xcomments, commenters should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words  xin the body of the message, "get form ." A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.  S:-  xt117. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. All  xlfilings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary,  xyTW-A306, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. The  xjMass Media Bureau contacts for this proceeding are Paul Gordon and Bruce Romano at (202) 4182120, or pgordon@fcc.gov or bromano@fcc.gov, or Keith A. Larson at (202) 4182600, or klarson@fcc.gov.  S-  xu118. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their comments on diskette. These  xdiskettes should be submitted to: Paul Gordon, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street,  x!S.W., Room 2C223, Washington, DC 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch diskette  xformatted in an IBM compatible format using WordPerfect 5.1 for Windows or compatible software. The  x diskette should be accompanied by a cover letter and should be submitted in "read only" mode. The  xdiskette should be clearly labelled with the commenter's name, proceeding (including the docket number  xin this case (MM Docket No. 9925), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission,  xMand the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase  x"Disk Copy Not an Original." Each diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in  xMa single electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. " S-  2"xv119. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular  xbusiness hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.  xIt is anticipated that the Reference Center will be relocated to the Commission's Portals Building during  xMthe late spring or early summer of 1999. Accordingly, and especially after March 1, 1999, interested  x/parties are advised to contact the FCC Reference Center at (202) 4180270 to determine its location.  xWritten comments by the public on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due on or  xbefore April 12, 1999. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget  x(OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information collections on or before April 12, 1999. In addition  xLto filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained  xherein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room C-1804, 445 12th"<%)u0*$&$&,,n("  xStreet, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB  xDesk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov.  S`-  xw120. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding will be treated as a "permitbutdisclose" proceeding  xsubject to the "permitbutdisclose" requirements under Section 1.1206(b) of the rules. 47 C.F.R.   x1.1206(b), as revised. Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission  xLrules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally  xprohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum summarizing  xa presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the  xsubjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented  SJ - xis generally required. See 47 C.F.R.  1.1206(b)(2), as revised. Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b).  S -  xx121. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. With respect to this Notice, an Initial Regulatory  S - xFlexibility Analysis ("IRFA") under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. 603, is contained in  x=Appendix E. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA, and must be filed in accordance with  S`- xthe same filing deadlines as comments IRFA DATESon the Notice, with a distinct heading designating them as responses  S:- xjto the IRFA. The Commission will send a copy of this Notice, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  S-  Nxy122. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Keith  xjA. Larson, Office of the Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau at (202) 4182600, or Bruce Romano or Paul Gordon, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau at (202) 4182120.  S&- VI. ORDERING CLAUSE ĐTP  S-  !xz123. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i)  S- xkand 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 303, this Notice of  S-Proposed Rule Making IS ADOPTED.  S:-  ^x{124. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Public Affairs, Reference  S- xjOperations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` `  hhMagalie Roman Salas x` ` hhSecretary"!*u0*$&$&,,(#"  S- 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)| 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a), APPENDIX A ă  S-N  FM Radio Service Areas and Interference Protection Criteria ă  S`-  x1. The current FM Broadcast Service consists of seven classes of licensed stations, Classes A,  xB1, B, C3, C2, C1, and C. (An eighth class, Class D, was discontinued in 1980, although applications  xfor renewal and modification of these existing licenses are still accepted). Each class has specific technical  xand operational characteristics, such as effective radiated power ("ERP"), antenna height, and protected  x/signal coverage area. Class A stations, the least powerful and shortest range of all the classes, have a  xmaximum power limit of 6 kW and, when using maximum power, a Class A station may not use an  x>antenna at a height greater than 100 meters (328 feet). (All heights are referenced to the height of the  x=antenna above the average height of the terrain surrounding the antenna support structure ("height above  xaverage terrain" or "HAAT")). Class C stations, the most powerful and longest range of all the classes,  xhave a minimum required ERP of 100 kW and, at that power, may not use an antenna at a height greater  x=than 600 meters (1968 feet). The reference coverage area of each class of FM station is considered to be  xkthe area bounded by the 1 millivoltpermeter (1 mV/m) signal strength contour from the station. For  xClass A stations using maximum facilities, the 1 mV/m contour is a circle with a radius of 28 kilometers  x(17 miles) around the station antenna. For Class C stations using maximum facilities, the 1 mV/m contour  xis a circle with a radius of 92 kilometers (57 miles) around the station antenna. For Classes B1 and C3,  xthe 1 mV/m contour has a radius of 39 kilometers (24 miles); for Classes B and C2, the 1 mV/m contour  x!has a radius of 52 kilometers (32 miles); and for Class C1, the 1 mV/m contour has a radius of 72  xkilometers (45 miles). (These values are derived from the Commission's F(50,50) R6602 propagation  S-curves. See 47 C.F.R.  73.333, Figure 1; see also 47 C.F.R.  73.211).  SB-  x2. Each current class of FM station is afforded protection from several types of harmful  S- xinterference, specifically: interference from cochannel stations, i.e., stations operating on the same  S- xfrequency as the protected station; interference from firstadjacent channel stations, i.e., stations operating  xone channel higher or lower in frequency than the protected station; interference from secondadjacent  S- x\channel stations, i.e., stations operating two channels higher or lower in frequency than the protected  S- x.station; interference from thirdadjacent channel stations, i.e., stations operating three channels higher or  SZ- x[lower in frequency from the protected station; and intermediate frequency ("IF") interference, i.e. signals  xfrom stations offset in frequency by 10.6 and 10.8 MHz from the protected station. (FM channels are  xyeach 200 kHz wide, resulting in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd adjacency spacings of 200 kHz, 400 kHz and 600 kHz,  xrespectively.) The 1 mV/m signal contours of Class A, C3, C2, C1, and C stations must receive 20 dB  xcochannel protection, 6 dB firstadjacent channel protection, and 40 dB second and thirdadjacent  xchannel protection. (In terms of millivolts per meter, cochannel interfering signals must be no greater  xthan 0.1 mV/m, 1stadjacent channel signals must be no greater than 0.5 mV/m, and 2nd/3rd adjacent  xysignals must be no greater than 100 mV/m at the service contour of the station receiving protection). The  x0.7 mV/m signal contours of Class B1 stations and the 0.5 mV/m signal contours of Class B stations must  xreceive these same degrees of protection. For IF protection, the 36 mV/m contours of all station classes  S!- xare protected against the 36 mV/m interfering contours of all stations spaced +/ 10.6 and 10.8 MHz. (See  xlSection 73.207 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 73.207, for a table of minimum permissible  xstationtostation separation distances generally based on these protection ratios). For fullpower services,  xMTable A of Section 73.207 (a)(1) provides minimum distance separations for same and different class  xchannel stations and for first, second, and thirdadjacent channel stations as well. For example, a co".%+u0*$&$&,,&"ԫ xchannel same class distance separation ranges from 290 kilometers (180 miles) for Class C stations, the  xkmost powerful FM stations, to 71 kilometers (115 miles) for Class A stations. Where the classes are  S- xdifferent (i.e., Class A to B), the cochannel separations range from 270 kilometers (168 miles) for Class  xLC1 to Class C, to 142 kilometers (88 miles) for Class A to Class C3. For adjacent channels, the required  xseparations range from 241 kilometers (150 miles) for first adjacent Class C to Class C operation, to 6  x[kilometers (10 miles) for third adjacent Class A to Class A operation. The Commission established this  xdistance separation method for channel assignment in 1962. It decided that using the distance separations  S- xwould be most appropriate for the optimum development of the FM service.  See First Report and Order  xin Docket 14184, 40 FCC 662, 685 (1962). In developing this method, and creating a table of minimum  xKdistance separations, the Commission took an approach that would allow it to make numerous assignments,  xwhile affording stations reasonably adequate protection from harmful interference. Based on the  xtechnology available at that time, it determined by class of station the distance required to provide  xMprotected service radii. It used field strength contours and based the original separations on these. It  x?noted that some interference was to be expected, and that the receivers of that time could operate  S -satisfactorily in such an environment. Id. at 686." ,u0*$&$&,,N "  S-, APPENDIX B T   0TPxThis appendix sets forth the minimum distance separations between the proposed classes of low  x power FM stations and existing full service FM stations. The first number in each box indicates the  xkminimum distance necessary to ensure that the low power station would not create interference. The  xsecond number corresponds to the distance necessary to ensure that the low power station would not  xreceive interference. The tables also show what distances would be necessary for co and firstadjacent channel low power stations to provide interference protection to each other.   {xDistance separations between domestic facilities were based on the sum of the protected F(50,50)  xcontour radius and the appropriate F(50,10) interfering contour radius as calculated in accordance with  x/47 C.F.R. 73.313 and 73.333. Full service domestic stations were assumed to operate at 73.211  S - x0maximum facilities.v 2 yO - xԍ Class D stations are assumed to operate with 85 watts ERP at 30 meters HAAT. This yields a 60 dBu that extends 5.4 km (just below the minimum required for a Class A station). Low power stations were assumed to utilize the maximum defined for the  xproposed class. Class B stations were protected to the 54 dBu F(50,50) contour and Class B1 stations are  xyprotected to the 57 dBu F(50,50) contour. All other classes (including low power) were protected to the  x60 dBu F(50,50) contour. The interfering contours were determined using the following desiredto x/undesired (D/U) signal ratios: cochannel, +20 dBu; firstadjacent channel,+6 dBu; secondadjacent  xchannel (reserved band), 20 dBu; second and thirdadjacent channel (commercial band), 40 dBu. IF  x=(intermediate frequency) spacings were calculated to prevent overlap of the 91 dBu F(50,50) (36 mV/m) contours of both stations.   xFinally, minimum distance separations were calculated for low power stations operating within  x=320 kilometers of the common borders with either Canada or Mexico. The spacings in the Canadian and  xMexican border zones were based on the maximum protected/interfering contours of the foreign allocations  xyvs. the interfering/protected contours of the domestic low power stations, as required by Section 5 of the  xCanadaUnited States FM Broadcasting Agreement and Section 3 of the MexicoUnited States FM  xBroadcasting Agreement, respectively. Any low power station within 320 km of either border would require coordination with the appropriate government. "P- v0*$&$&,,m"  S- XX   sK #\  P6G;̈́P#CLASS LP1000#&J\  P6Q&P#  S%-T  Assuming 1000 watt effective radiated power (ERP)  at 60 meters antenna height above terrain (HAAT)  S- 60 dBu F(50,50) protected contour extends 14.2 km T  S-T  MINIMUM DISTANCE SEPARATION (KM) NECESSARY TO:  S]- CAUSE NO OVERLAP/RECEIVE NO OVERLAP  yO5-T#C\  P6QH;P# T T c ddx !ddx. c    "" " yOm -j>Channel qClass I" co I" 1st I"u2nd areserved band I"V2nd/3rd  commercial band "'C IF P  "Y" "yA Y"o 79/101 Y"50/58 Y"r33/23 Y"31/17 Y")e 7P P  "vC3eY"o 90/128eY"60/74eY"r44/27eY"41/18eY")e 9P P  "vB1Y"F 105/128Y"70/74Y"r50/27Y"46/18Y")e 9P P e"vC2Y"F 103/152Y"73/92Y"r57/34Y"54/20Y"&; 13P P "yBUY"F 137/152UY"95/92UY"r71/34UY"67/20UY"&; 13P P "vC1Y"F 123/186Y"94/119Y"r77/48Y"75/24Y"&; 20P P U"yCY"F 143/212Y"Z113/151Y"r96/65Y"94/28 Y"&; 28P P "yDEY" 56/32EY"27/22EY"r10/16EY"8/15EY")e 4P    "Y" "[pOther LP1000" 65"#35"~"",    E yOT &CLASS LP1000  yOU WITHIN 320 KM OF THE CANADIAN BORDER T T T r !ddx. Addx. r   8 E "I" " yOU-j>Channel qClassI" coI" 1stI"u2ndI"3rdI"'C IF8 P  "IY" "`A1(.25/100)5Y" 90/585Y"48/335Y"r25/185Y"21/155Y")e 4P P "g A(6/100) Y"F 111/101 Y"69/58 Y"r45/23 Y"41/17 Y")e 7P P 5"bB1(25/100)!Y"F 123/128!Y"81/74!Y"r57/27!Y"53/18!Y")e 9P P  "eB(50/150)%#Y"F 137/152%#Y"95/92%#Y"r71/34%#Y"67/20%#Y"&; 12P P !"_C1(100/300)u$Y"F 158/186u$Y"Z116/119u$Y"r93/48u$Y"89/24u$Y"&; 20P   %# "Y" "bC(100/600)%"F 154/212%"Z120/151%"o102/65%"98/28%"&; 28  u$T  yO&T "&.v.**'%" &CLASS LP1000  yO WITHIN 320 KM OF MEXICAN BORDER T T T m Addx. addx / m  8 u$ I " yO-j>Channel \cMexican ClassXI" coXI" 1stXI"jB2nd/3rdXI"/IF8 P   IY "g A(3/100)Y" 75/90Y"45/51Y"r26/16Y"Q6P P X"cAA(6/100)Y"o 79/101Y"49/58Y"r31/17Y"Q7P P "bB1(25/100)H Y"F 105/128H Y"70/74H Y"r46/18H Y"Q9P P "eB(50/150) Y"F 137/152 Y"95/92 Y"r67/20 Y"'12P P H "_C1(100/300) Y"F 123/186 Y"94/119 Y"r75/24 Y"'20P     Y "bC(100/600)h "F 143/212h "Z113/151h "r94/28h "'28   T"h /v.** 0 "  sKT#\  P6G;̈́P#  sMK6 CLASS LP100#&J\  P6Q&P#  S-T  Assuming 100 watts effective radiated power (ERP)   at 30 meters antenna height above terrain (HAAT)  SJ- 60 dBu F(50,50) protected contour extends 5.2 km  S"-T  MINIMUM DISTANCE SEPARATION (KM) NECESSARY TO:  S- CAUSE NO OVERLAP/RECEIVE NO OVERLAP  yO-T#C\  P6QH;P#T 0 m addx / ddx0 m       "" " yOB-j>Channel qClass I" co I" 1st I"u2nd _reserved band  I"V2nd/3rd  commercial band "'C IF P  "Y" "yA Y" 47/92 Y"36/49 Y"r30/15 Y"29/8  Y")e 7P P  "vC3: Y"o 58/119: Y"47/66: Y"r41/19: Y"40/10: Y")e 9P P  "vB1Y"o 67/119Y"54/66Y"r47/19Y"46/10Y")e 9P P : "vC2Y"o 71/143Y"60/84Y"r54/26Y"53/12Y"&; 12P P "yB*Y"S 92/143 *Y"77/84 *Y"r68/26*Y"67/12*Y"&; 12P P "vC1zY"S 91/178 zY"80/111zY"r74/39zY"73/16zY"&; 20P P *"yCY"F 110/203Y"Z100/142Y"r93/56Y"93/19Y"&; 28P P z"yDY" 24/23Y"13/13Y"w7/7 Y" 6/6 Y")e 4P H   "YX" "oOther mtLP100bX" 24bX"#14bX"~bX"bX", H   XT  yO*T  yO} CLASS LP100 WITHIN 320 KM OF THE CANADIAN BORDER T T r ddx0 ddx0 r H  8  "I" " yO*-j>Channel [LCanadian ClassI" coI" 1stI"u2ndI"3rdI"'C IF8 P  "IY" "`A1(.25/100) Y" 45/50 Y"30/25 Y"r21/10 Y"20/7 Y")e 4P P "g A(6/100)ZY" 66/92ZY"50/49ZY"r41/15ZY"40/8ZY")e 7P P  "bB1(25/100) Y"o 78/119 Y"62/66 Y"r53/19 Y"52/10 Y")e 9P P Z"eB(50/150)!Y"S 92/143 !Y"76/84 !Y"r68/26!Y"66/12!Y"&; 12P P  "_C1(100/300)J#Y"* 113/178 J#Y"98/111J#Y"r89/39J#Y"88/16J#Y"&; 19P   ! "Y" "bC(100/600)$"F 118/203$"Z106/142$"r99/56$"98/19$"&; 28  J# yO$TT T"%0v.**&E$" T  yO CLASS LP100WITHIN 320 KM OF MEXICAN BORDER TT T m ddx0 ddxX1 m  8 J# I " yO-j>Channel \cMexican ClassI" coI" 1stI"jB2nd/3rdI"/IF8 P X IY "g A(3/100)Y" 43/82Y"32/42Y"t25/8 Y"Q5P P "cAA(6/100)0Y" 47/920Y"36/490Y"u29/80Y"Q6P P "bB1(25/100)Y"o 67/119Y"54/66Y"r45/10Y"Q8P P 0"eB(50/150) Y"S 91/143  Y"76/84  Y"r66/12 Y"'11P P "_C1(100/300) Y"S 91/178  Y"80/111 Y"r73/16 Y"'19P     Y "bC(100/600) "F 110/203 "Z100/142 "r92/19 "'27   T" 1v.** ^ "  sK  XX    #\  P6G;̈́P#MICRORADIO CLASS  SM-TT #&J\  P6Q&P# Y Assuming 1 watt effective radiated power (ERP)  at 30 meters antenna height above terrain (HAAT)  S- 60 dBu F(50,50) protected contour extends 1.8 km  S-T  MINIMUM DISTANCE SEPARATION (KM) NECESSARY TO:  S- CAUSE NO OVERLAP/RECEIVE NO OVERLAP  yO]-T#X\  P6G;H;P# 0 m ddxX1  ddx%2 m       "" " yO-h" Channel qClass] I" co] I" 1st] I"u2nd areserved band] I"V2nd/3rd  commercial band% "'C IF P % "Y" "yAu Y" 34/89u Y"31/46u Y"r29/11u Y"28/5 u Y")e 5P P % "vC3 Y"o 45/115 Y"42/62 Y"r40/15 Y"39/6  Y")e 7P P u "vB1Y"o 51/115Y"48/62Y"r46/15Y"45/6 Y")e 7P P  "vC2eY"o 58/140eY"55/80eY"r53/22eY"52/8 eY"&; 10P P "yBY"S 73/140 Y"69/80 Y"r67/22Y"65/8 Y"&; 10P P e"vC1Y"S 78/174 Y"75/107Y"r73/36Y"72/12Y"&; 18P P "yCUY"S 97/200 UY"g94/138 UY"r93/52UY"92/16UY"&; 26P P "yDY" 11/20Y"8/10 Y"w6/4 Y" 6/2 Y")e 2P H  U "YX" "oOther cMicroradioX" 7 X"&A4X"~X"X", H   XT T"2v+''xx~T" T  yOT(  MICRORADIO CLASS WITHIN 320 KM OF THE CANADIAN BORDER  yO-T#X\  P6G;H;P# 0 r ddx%2 ddxX3 r H    "*" " yO-j>Channel hCanadian  yO-lUClassw{ yO- xԍ In accordance with the CanadaUnited States FM Broadcasting Agreement, Canadian Class C stations are protected to the 58 dBu contour. All other Canadian stations are protected to the 54 dBu contour.X*" coX*" 1stX*"u2ndX*"3rdX*"'C IF P X "*Y" "`A1(.25/100)Y" 27/46Y"22/21Y"u20/6Y"19/3 Y")e 2P P X"g A(6/100)Y" 47/88Y"42/46Y"r40/11Y"39/5 Y")e 5P P "bB1(25/100)H Y"o 59/115H Y"54/62H Y"r52/15H Y"51/6 H Y")e 7P P "eB(50/150) Y"S 73/140  Y"69/80  Y"r66/22 Y"65/8  Y"&; 10P P H "_C1(100/300) Y"S 94/174  Y"90/107 Y"r88/36 Y"87/12 Y"&; 18P     "Y" "bC(100/600)h "* 103/200 h ">100/138 h "r98/52h "97/16h "&; 26    Sh -T#&a\  P6G;&P#T T  S-' MICRORADIO CLASS WITHIN 320 KM OF MEXICAN BORDER TT 0#X\  P6G;H;P# m ddxX3 !ddx3 m     * " yOp-j>Channel i1Mexican  yO-lUClass>xX { yO- xԍ In accordance with the MexicoUnited States FM Broadcasting Agreement, Mexican Class B stations are  xprotected to the 54 dBu. Mexican Class B1 stations are protected to the 57 dBu contour. All other classes are protected to the 60 dBu contour.>*" co*" 1st*" yOp-e2nd/3rdyp@\ yO@- xԍ Pursuant to the MexicoUnited States Broadcasting Agreement, both the second and thirdadjacent channel spacings are based upon a 40 dBu D/U ratio. *"/IF P  *Y "g A(3/100)Y" 30/78Y"27/38Y"t24/4 Y"Q4P P "cAA(6/100)hY" 34/88hY"31/46hY"t28/5 hY"Q5P P "bB1(25/100)Y"o 51/115Y"48/62Y"t45/6 Y"Q7P P h"eB(50/150)Y"S 73/140 Y"69/80 Y"t65/8 Y"'10P P "_C1(100/300)XY"S 78/174 XY"75/107XY"r72/12XY"'18P    Y "bC(100/600)"S 97/200 "g94/138 "r92/16"'26  X S-TT    T#&a\  P6G;&P#"3y+''xx?"  S-+ APPENDIX C T  S-T4  In Band On Channel Digital Radio Service ĐTP  S`-  3 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)x1. FM broadcast signals are classified as "analog" emissions, i.e., an emission which is  xcharacterized by a continuum of output parameter values. All current AM stations use analog emissions,  xLas well as the majority of TV stations, although a limited number of TV stations have commenced digital  xtransmissions since November 1, 1998. Digital emissions, which are characterized by discrete levels of  x0output parameter values, are gradually replacing analog emissions in a variety of communications  xapplications because they possess several technological advantages over analog emissions which make  xthem more useful and reliable, and the Commission is committed to facilitating this transition in an orderly  SJ - xand systematic manner.5z J R` yO - xԍ For example, the fidelity of digital audio recordings typically surpasses that of analog recordings, but this  xextra fidelity can be degraded or lost if the digital recording is transmitted by a station using an analog, rather than  xdigital, emission. The comparative fidelity of the two emissions, given identical audio inputs, is a function of their relative bandwidths and other factors, as well as the quality of the listener's receiver and the strength of the signal.5 On October 9, 1998, a petition for rule making was filed with the Commission  xjby USA Digital Radio Partners, L.P. ("USADR"), requesting the initiation of a proceeding to amend Part  x73 of the Rules to permit the introduction of digital audio broadcasting in the AM and FM radio services.  S - xA full discussion of this petition is beyond the scope of this Notice. However, because the petition raises  ximportant issues concerning the interference protection criteria used in the FM band, we are addressing  xaspects of this issue now, at least preliminarily, in conjunction with our proposals to create two new FM  S\- xMstation classes and to consider a microradio service. See paragraphs APP C REF 147שIBOC DISCUSSION49 in the Notice, above. This Appendix provides some details of USADR's proposal.  S-  x2. USADR proposes the introduction of digital signals on the FM band using a technique whereby  xka station would transmit both its analog signal and two digital signals of lesser amplitude, one on each  xside of the existing FM signal. (Other systems in development of which we have cognizance would use  xka similar signal configuration). This arrangement is commonly called "inband, onchannel," or IBOC.  xUsing IBOC, the two digital signals would be positioned on frequencies slightly offset above and below  xthe frequency modulated signal and would be sufficiently suppressed in magnitude so that they would fit  xwithin the emission mask currently required for all FM stations. Using this configuration, USADR argues  xLthat digital signals could be introduced into the FM band without disrupting the reception of FM signals  xor amending the current stationtostation interference protection criteria. USADR envisions that this dual  xtransmission mode, which they refer to as the "hybrid mode," would be initiated in the next few years and  xwould continue for a number of years, eventually being replaced by an "alldigital mode," when the analog  xLFM signal would be eliminated and the power of the 2 digital channeledge signals would be significantly increased.  S-  x3. USADR states that it has conducted analyses of its proposed system which "verify that  xrestricting the digital carriers to the 70 kHz region between 129 and 199 kHz from the center frequency  x/on either side of the analog spectrum minimizes interference to the host analog and adjacent channels  S>- x[without exceeding the existing FCC spectrum mask."I{>R` yO%-ԍ USADR Petition, Appendix C at 8I In USADR's study of the interference impact of  xtheir hybrid and alldigital configurations on the existing FM station environment, and the interference" 4@{+''xx!?"  ximpact of existing stations on the USADR system, it found that its system could be implemented without  xdisrupting regular FM analog service and without suffering significant interference from FM analog  S- xservice.?|R` {O-ԍ Id., Appendix E? The relevant issues from that study which impact this Notice are the effects arising from  xsecond and thirdadjacent channel interference, as we have not considered and are not proposing to permit  xyany of the new classes of stations to cause cochannel or firstadjacent channel interference beyond those limits already applying to existing classes of FM stations.  S-  x4. With respect to thirdadjacent channel interference, the USADR petition states: "Because of  x=the design of the USADR IBOC system, digital reception is essentially not susceptible to thirdadjacent  xchannel interference; nor is IBOC likely to increase the potential for causing such interference to analog  Sr- xstations."D}rZR` {Ol -ԍ Id., Appendix D at 3D In its comments, NAB argues that, because an IBOC system will add new energy around host  xanalog signal, effectively widening this signal to some degree, it will increase the potential for an IBOC  xstation to interfere with the reception of the analog signal from a thirdadjacent channel station. They  xconclude that "[a]llowing thirdadjacent channel stations to move closer together would increase the signal  xstrength of thirdadjacent channel interfering stations with respect to the signal strength of a desired station  xand would thus increase the potential for this interference to occur. For this reason, thirdadjacent channel  S - xspacing requirements cannot be modified."u~Z R` yO- xhԍ NAB Comments at 2324. Based on Figure 7 (page 24), it appears that the amount of thirdadjacent channel  {O- xJdigital energy which could cause interference within the victim receiver's FM analog channel is extremely small, and, in all likelihood, below the noise floor of the receiver.u Because no comprehensive operational test data is available  xfor any form of IBOC system configuration, we do not know whether USADR or NAB is correct. We  xnote that we are not proposing to alter the thirdadjacent channel protection requirements between any of  S - xthe existing classes of FM stations. Thus, under the proposals within this Notice concerning thirdadjacent  S- x.channels, the potential for interference would be from IBOC stations to the reception of analog LP1000,  xLP100, and microradio stations. This problem would present a minimal hinderance (or no hinderance at  x[all, if USADR is correct) because the slight amount of additional noise caused by the digital signal within  xthe thirdadjacent channel would produce only a very marginal, if any, degradation of the received FM  SF- xsignal. Thirdadjacent channel interference from LP1000, LP100, and microradio stations would be  xjobviated by the significantly restricted occupied bandwidth and correspondingly tightened spectral mask we discuss for these stations.  S-  ]x5. USADR and NAB also address the issue of secondadjacent channel interference. NAB states  S- xthat "secondadjacent channel interference is the primary challenge facing IBOC designers.":R` {O.!-ԍ Id. at 22.: The NAB's  x.diagrammatic representations of secondadjacent signal magnitudes and spacings clearly indicate that the  x{most important secondadjacent channel interference consideration would involve IBOCtoIBOC  xinterference, because the upper digital sideband of the victim signal is almost directly adjacent to the lower  S- xLdigital sideband of the interfering signal.:R` {O &-ԍ Id. at 21.: NAB does not provide any analysis evaluating IBOCtoFM"52 +''xx=?"  xlor FMtoIBOC secondadjacent interference. In the context of the current FM radio interference  xstandards, USADR addresses the issue of secondadjacent FM interference to an IBOC signal, stating: "An  xanalog secondadjacent interferer will have a negligible effect on the performance of the digital signal,  S- xsince it does not overlap in frequency with the desired digital signal."KR` yO-ԍ USADR Petition, Appendix E at 22.K USADR also addressed the issue  xof secondadjacent IBOC interference to FM signals, noting that the digital sidebands of the hybrid and  xzalldigital IBOC secondadjacent signals fall well outside the victim FM channel, and saying that "as a  xresult, the [interference] effects of secondadjacent hybrid and alldigital IBOC signals [to FM signals]  S- xshould be negligible.":XR` {O -ԍ Id. at 67.: We invite comment in this regard and the submission of relevant measurement data. "6+''xx&?"  S-+ APPENDIX D T  S-Spectrum Availability Analysis T   |TPxTo investigate the feasibility of a low power radio service, we conducted spectrum availability  xanalyses for sixty communities of various sizes throughout the United States. Twenty cities were chosen  xwithin each of three population "tiers." The first tier consisted of cities with populations of more than  xj500,000 persons; the second tier, cities with populations between 200,000 and 500,000 persons; and the  S-third tier, cities with populations between 50,000 and 200,000 persons.lR` yO( -ԍ Population figures were based upon the 1996 U.S. Census estimates.l  Sp-  xGrids. We established a uniform distribution of study locations centered on each city by  x[overlaying a coordinate grid consisting of grid cells of a size one minute latitude by one minute longitude.  xThroughout much of the country, a one minute variation in longitude is slightly less than one mile and  xa one minute variation in latitude is slightly more than one mile. The study locations correspond to where  xthe grid lines intersect. For Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities, the grid extended 30 minutes a side. This yields a  xtotal of 961 intersections (study locations). For Tier 3 cities the grid extended 20 minutes on each side, yielding a total of 441 study locations.  S2-  ]xInterference with respect to other services. At each study location, we determined whether or not  x\a proposed low power FM station could operate on each of the 100 FM channels without causing or  S- x receiving objectionable interference.\XR` {O- x;ԍ This protection criterion differs somewhat from the criteria proposed in this Notice. Specifically, the Notice  xproposes a secondary status for LP100 stations, which means that they would not be protected against interference  xreceived. Thus, our analysis, which assumes full protection against interference received by the low power station,  xmay significantly underestimate the number of low power stations that could be assigned if they were permitted to receive interference.\ We based these determinations entirely on minimum distance  x.separation tables. In all cases, we used the larger of the two spacing requirements set forth in Appendix  xB. We applied these separation requirements to all full service FM licensed facilities, construction  Sl- xypermits, pending applications, and vacant allotments.l R` yO- xԍ These studies were based upon the Mass Media Bureau's FM Engineering Database as of December 9, 1998. Subsequent staff actions or application filings could alter the results of this analysis. Additionally, low power FM stations operating  xjin the reserved band (channels 201220) or on channel 253 were required to provide protection to nearby  S- xTV channel 6 stations.Xb R` yO - xKԍ We used the TV channel 6 spacing requirements listed in the FM translator rules, 47 C.F.R. 74.1205(a),  xfor stations in the reserved band. We required low power stations operating on channel 253 in Zone I to be spaced at least 16 kilometers from TV channel 6 stations and those in Zone II to be spaced at least 20 kilometers. Additionally, in one of the studies, LP100 stations were restricted from causing  S-or receiving interference with respect to FM translators. p R` yO$- xԍ Because FM translator stations are not specified by class, we provided protection to and from translators in accordance with the following table based on the translator's ERP and HAAT in the azimuth towards the LP100 station. "n&+''&"Ԍ#6\  P6Q X,P# h !ddx3  !:ddx h      "FM Translator 1 9mV/m contour Tdistance (km) *"LP100 # cochannel (km)*"H+LP100 =1stadjacent :channel (km)*"?LP100 C2nd/3rdadjacent channel (km)*";LP100 IF Channel l(km)  .  ,  "I13.3 or greater X,"67 X,"P35 X,"21 X,"5.  * ,  "!Greater than 7.3 but less than 13.3  ,"51 ,"P26 ,"14 ,"4 ^  X Y  "7.3 or lessZY"30ZY"Q16ZY"8ZY"5^  Y"7 +''xx?"Ԍ S-  ԙxInterference between low power stations. Our model provided interference protection between co S- xchannel or firstadjacent channel low power stations.mX R` yOz - x<ԍ We used the minimum distance separations listed in Appendix B. The model did not provide any 2nd or  x3rdadjacent channel protection between low power stations. No studies were made mixing LP1000 stations with LP100 stations. Similarly, no studies were made involving microradio stations.m Because of this, some stations are precluded from  xassignment solely because of previously assigned low power stations. Thus, the grid location assigned  xto a station becomes an important factor in its preclusive effect on the assignment of other cochannel and  xfirstadjacent channel low power stations within the grid. For example, a channel 202 assignment near  xthe center of the grid may preclude any other channel 202 station from being assigned, whereas two or perhaps four channel 202 stations could be assigned if they were located at the corners of the grid.  S-  xAssignment methodology. For each of the 100 FM frequencies, the analysis program determines  xwhich grid points are precluded because of interference considerations with respect to other services as  St- xdescribed above. For each grid location available for a frequency assignment (e.g., channel 202), the  xprogram determines how many assignments on other available cochannel (channel 202) and firstadjacent  xchannel (channels 201 and 203) grid locations would be precluded by this assignment. The program  xrepeats this process for each available grid location, recording the preclusive effect until all available  xlocations have been considered. Then the assignment process begins. The program makes assignments  xat the most preclusive grid locations. Between equally preclusive locations, the location nearest the center  x!of the grid is selected. We selected the most preclusive locations, rather than the least preclusive  xlocations, in our analysis for several reasons. First, we wanted a realistic, rather than an overly optimistic  xassessment of the spectrum available for this proposed service. Also, transmitter sites will most likely be  xselected based on coverage considerations, not preclusion considerations. Finally, a great many of the grid  xlocations theoretically available for a low power station will, in fact, not be available due to a variety of  S- xenvironmental considerations (e.g., zoning restrictions, proximity to airports, swamps, rivers or water,  S-etc.). R` yOX - xԍ In several cities located in coastal areas or bordering on large bodies of water, the program excludes from consideration grid points likely to be over water."8x+''xxe?"  S- 9< , APPENDIX E T  S-Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis TP  S`- xNAs required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),yZ`R` {O- xԍ See 5 U.S.C.  603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C.  601 et. seq., has been amended by the Contract With America  xAdvancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).y the Commission has prepared this Initial  xRegulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by  S- xthe policies and rules proposed in the present Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Written public comments  xare requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed  S- xby the deadlines for comments on the IRFA provided above in paragraph IRFA DATES121. The Commission will send  S- xa copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business  St- xkAdministration. See 5U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will  SN -be published in the Federal Register. See id.  S - Need For and Objectives of the Proposed Rule Changes:  S - x The Commission received petitions for rulemaking asking for the creation of a low power radio service.  xBecause they raised similar or identical issues, the Commission coordinated its responses to them. The  xCommission released Public Notices of its receipt of three of the proposals and invited public comment on them.  xLIn response to significant public support, the Commission is now proposing to create a new, low power  xFM service. Specifically, it is proposing two classes of LPFM service, a 1000watt maximum class  xj("LP1000") and a 100watt maximum class ("LP100"). We are also asking whether to create a third class  x(called "microradio"), which would have a maximum power output of one to ten watts. Because of the  xypredicted lower construction and operational costs of LPFM stations as opposed to full power facilities,  xwe expect that small entities would be expected to have few economic obstacles to becoming LPFM  xlicensees. Therefore, this proposed new service may serve as a vehicle for small entities and under xrepresented groups (including women and minorities) to gain valuable broadcast experience and to add their voices to their local communities.  SX- Legal Basis :  S- xAuthority for the actions proposed in this Notice may be found in  4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303.  S- Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Would Apply:  xThe RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of  S - xsmall entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.B R` yO%-ԍ 5 U.S.C.  603(b)(3).B The RFA generally defines the  xterm "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and" 9z+''xxe"?"  S- x"small governmental jurisdiction."?R` yOh-ԍ 5 U.S.C.  601(6).? In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the  S- xterm "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.zXR` yO- x,ԍ 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. 632).  xPursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with  x;the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes  xjone or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C.  601(3).z A small business concern is one which:  x(1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any  S- xadditional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).XR` yO0 -ԍ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.  632 (1996).X A small organization is  xjgenerally "any notforprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant  S8- xjin its field."?8R` yOp-ԍ 5 U.S.C.  601(4).? Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.8( R` yO- xԍ 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6 (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration). "Small  x.governmental jurisdiction" generally means "governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,  S- xschool districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000."? R` yO-ԍ 5 U.S.C.  601(5).? As of 1992, there were  S- xapproximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States.uR` yOp-ԍ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "1992 Census of Governments."u This number includes 38,978 counties,  S- xycities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000.3R` {O-ԍ  Id.3 The Census  x Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are small entities.  xThe Small Business Administration defines a radio broadcasting station that has $5 million or less in  S - xjannual receipts as a small business.P 2R` yO-ԍ 13 C.F.R.  121.201, SIC code 4832.P A radio broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged  S - xlin broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.X R` yO !-ԍ 1992 Census, Series UC92S1, at Appendix A9.X Included in this industry are commercial,  S - xreligious, educational, and other radio stations.r\ RR` {Or#- xԍ Id. The definition used by the SBA also includes radio broadcasting stations which also produce radio  xprogram materials. Separate establishments that are primarily engaged in producing radio program material are  {O%-classified under another SIC number, however. Id.r The 1992 Census indicates that 96 percent (5,861 of  x6,127) radio station establishments produced less than $5 million in revenue in 1992. Official Commission"X:v+''xx?"  S- xrecords indicate that 11,334 individual radio stations were operating in 1992.VR` yOh-ԍ FCC News Release, No. 31327 (Jan. 13, 1993).V As of December 31, 1998,  x0Commission records indicate that 12,472 radio stations were operating, of which 7,679 were FM  S-stations.XR` yO-ԍ FCC News Release, "Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 1998" (Jan. 25, 1999).  S`- xThe proposed rules, if adopted, would apply to a new category of FM radio broadcasting service. For the  xproposed service, the number of stations that could be licensed without causing unacceptable interference  xwould depend on the interference criteria that we will apply to the various classes of low power radio  xservice. Should we determine that second and/or thirdadjacent channel interference protection would  xnot be necessary to prevent unacceptable interference to full power stations, then far more LPFM facilities  x[could be authorized. The number of stations that we could authorize is also dependent upon the ratio of  xLP1000, LP100, and microradio stations for which we would accept applications. For instance, the greater  xthe number of LP1000 stations, the less spectrum would remain available to accommodate other LPFM facilities. This, in turn, would affect how many new stations would be available to small entities.  xThe number of entities that may seek to obtain a low power radio license is currently unknown. We note,  xhowever, that the Commission has received over 13,000 inquiries in the past year from individuals and  xgroups interested in operating such a facility. In addition, we expect that, due to the small size of low  x/power FM stations, small entities would generally have a greater interest than large ones in acquiring them.  xWe seek comment and data regarding the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed  S-rules, if adopted.  Sh- Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements:  xThe Commission is proposing to create a new broadcasting service that may allow hundreds or thousands  xlof small entities to become broadcast licensees for the first time. This endeavor would require the  xcollection of information for the purposes of processing applications for (among other things) initial  x.construction permits, assignments and transfers, and renewals. Given the power levels and purposes of  xLP1000 stations (such as their potential to be an entrylevel radio service), we would likely require the  xsame or similar reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements as full power radio  xbroadcasters. However, recognizing that LPFM 100 and microradio licensees may be small, inexperienced  xoperators who would be serving fairly limited areas and audiences, we intend to keep this service as  xsimple as possible. Accordingly, we intend to keep reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance  S- xrequirements to a minimum. The Notice seeks comment on these issues, including comment specifically directed toward the possible effects of such requirements on small entities.  S:- x  Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant  S -Alternatives Considered:  xWe are proposing a low power radio service that is divided into subclasses, defined by their power output  x(in watts): LP1000 and LP100. We are also requesting comment on a possible microradio class of 110"";+''xx'$?"  xwatts. With this subdivision, small entities would be able to apply for stations in the class that is most  S- xappropriate for their interests and their ability to construct and operate a station. The Notice asks for  xcomment on the proposed classes and asks whether an alternative system would better serve the public interest.  S:- xThe Notice proposes ownership rules intended to assist small entities construct or acquire LPFM stations.  x=Parties with attributable interests in any full power broadcast facilities would not be eligible to have any  xownership interest in any low power radio stations; this would prevent large group owners (or even large  x[singlestation owners) from constructing and operating LPFM facilities that might otherwise be available  xto small entities. The proposed local and national ownership restrictions of one station per community  xLand five or ten nationwide similarly would be intended to ensure that ample LPFM stations are available  xfor small entities. However, the ownership rules would also prohibit small entity full power broadcasters from acquiring LPFM licenses.  S - xThe Notice does not propose a local residency requirement on LPFM licensees. Regarding LP1000  xstations, it notes that full power stations require neither local residency nor integration between ownership  xand management to assess and address local needs and interests. Such a restriction would also frustrate  x!any attempt at achieving certain efficiencies from national multiple ownership long recognized as  xkbeneficial for fullpower stations. Additionally, because the service areas for LP1000 stations will be  xrelatively small, a potential new entrant might hold residency in a location where no LP1000 channels can  xMbe found, so such a residency requirement might frustrate one of the significant potentials of LP1000  xstations. The same rationale can be applied to LP100 and microradio stations. Moreover, we expect that  xthe nature of the service provided by the two smaller classes of stations would attract primarily local or  Sn-nearby residents. The Notice seeks comment on these assumptions and resulting proposal.  S - xThe Notice requests comment on whether unlicensed operators, who have broadcasted illegally, should  x=be considered eligible to hold LPFM licensees. Although we do not have data on this issue, we presume  xthat most of these illegal operators are individuals, small groups, or small entities. As a result, our  xkdisposition of this issue could be of great concern to this relatively small group, should they desire to  S- xoperate LPFM stations within the legal framework we are proposing. The Notice asks whether unlicensed  xzoperators have the requisite character qualifications to be Commission licensees. It also asks whether  xthose who have promptly ceased operation when advised by the Commission to do so, or who voluntarily  S - xcease operations within ten days of the publication of the summary of this Notice in the Federal Register, should be considered differently in this regard.  S- x[The Notice also asks whether LPFM stations of each class should be subject to the variety of other rules  xLin Part 73 with which full power stations must comply, such as the main studio rule, the public file rule,  xkand the periodic ownership reporting requirements. Given the purposes and power levels of LP1000  xstations, we tentatively conclude that LP1000 licensees should generally meet the Part 73 rules applicable  xto full power FM stations. However, we seek comment on whether sufficient useful purpose would be  S!- xserved in applying each rule to these licensees. The Notice states that we would be disinclined to apply  xmost of these service rules to microradio stations, and we particularly seek comment with regard to the  xrules appropriate for LP100 stations. Commenters are invited to discuss which existing rules should apply  xor what new or modified rules would be more appropriate. Because of the costs of complying with  xCommission rules, this issue could be of importance in determining whether a small entity could afford to operate an LPFM station." &<+''xx'?"Ԍ S- x-ԙThe Notice proposes a mandatory electronic filing system, envisioning an internetbased system that would  xprovide substantial assistance to potential applicants with little technical or legal background. For  xexample, we may be able to develop a system that could inform a potential applicant what frequencies  xare available before an application is filed. The Commission notes the increasing ease of accessibility to  x{the internet through private homes, public libraries, and other publicly accessible places. Without  xelectronic filing, the Commission lacks the resources to promptly accomplish the necessary data entry for  xyhundreds or thousands of LPFM (and, possibly, microradio) applications. A manual filing system might  xresult in applicants' not learning for many months (at least) whether their applications were acceptable  xzfor filing. As a result, electronic filing would provide superior service to LPFM applicants and speed service to the public.  x[The Commission proposes to adopt a window filing system with short filing periods of only a few days  x/each, and it asks commenters to address if that would have advantages over a first-come, first-served  xsystem. One of the Commission's concerns is to reduce the number of mutually exclusive applications,  xdue to the resulting delay in service implementation, and because Section 309(j) of the Communications  x^Act of 1934, as amended, requires mutual exclusivity between or among commercial broadcast  xapplications to be resolved through auctions. Also, Section 309(j)(6)(E) of the Communications Act of  x1934, as amended, states that the Commission has the "obligation, in the public interest, to continue to  xuse engineering solutions, threshold qualifications, service regulations, and other means in order to avoid  xmutual exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings." With auctions, receiving an LPFM  xjconstruction permit could become too expensive for many of the people this service is intended to serve.  S- xlWith regard to a firstcome system, the Notice questions the fairness of rejecting an application as  xunacceptable for filing because it would be mutually exclusive with one filed only a moment earlier, possibly solely because the latter party may have had a poor internet connection.  S- Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules:  xThe initiatives and proposed rules raised in this proceeding do not overlap, duplicate or conflict with any other rules."=+''xx?"  Y-   A #Xw PE37 +++p&?"     @-  -@x` `  hh@hpp  January 28, 1999  X-2 Statement Jvof  Xv-Commissioner Susan Ness ĐTP  W -Re:xIn the Matter of Creation of a Low Power Radio Service  X -  Y - TPThis Notice of Proposed Rulemaking describes three low power FM services that could provide a means to give a public voice to individuals and entities currently not able to participate in our broadcasting system. We are seeking comment on whether to authorize any or all of these new services. By doing so, we may enable students, community organizations, and those underrepresented in conventional broadcasting to provide programming of special interest to small and niche populations. At the same time, the Commission recognizes its role, as Chairman Kennard has said, "to be the guardian of the spectrum, not to degrade it." One of the primary reasons for the agency's establishment was to avoid chaos on the airwaves. To me, there are three issues  Y-that will be in the forefront as we build a record: first, whether these services should be  Y-open only to noncommercial entities; second, whether and to what extent these services would adversely affect the potential transition of existing broadcasters from analog to digital  Y-through an "In Band On Channel" (IBOC) system; and third, whether the proposed services would create undue levels of interference to full power services. We have heard from many individuals and organizations who have described in moving detail their hopes and plans for local service to their communities. Many requests emphasized their nonprofit goals which could fit very well within these low power structures. I have been particularly interested in the prospects of this service for students, having been involved with my own college radio station. I would like to believe that this proceeding will lead us to be able to create one or more new services in which at least some of the many hopeful people we have heard from may participate. I also support the Chairman's call for more ownership opportunities for women and minorities who are finding it more and more difficult to enter broadcasting as consolidation drives up station prices and access to capital continues to be scarce for new entrants. But I underscore that those interested in low power radio must seriously assess the economic requirements of launching and sustaining a new business, whether on a commercial or noncommercial basis. ")'?+++P(?"   Before I am to conclude that one or more new services are feasible, I must be satisfied that the technical issues have been adequately addressed. There are real questions regarding potential adverse effects on IBOC digital service and interference protections, particularly with respect to second adjacent channels. I have long championed the development of a terrestrial digital service to enable broadcasters to make a digital conversion, should they so choose, to remain technically competitive with satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS). IBOC technology appears to be almost ready for commercial application and should not be undermined or compromised by any action we take on low power FM. The record that will be developed over the next few months must provide an objective technical basis for low power FM service. We would then brighten, not tarnish, the Commission's performance in maintaining the integrity of the radio spectrum while expanding the diversity of voices, which has so enriched the airwaves over the years." @+))P ?"  X-    # Xj\  P6G;XP#January 28, 1998X(#P  a< #|\  P6G;hP# SEPARATE STATEMENT OF  a< COMMISSIONER MICHAEL K. POWELL #Xw PE37 (as updated 12/14/98) (attached). A brief review of this page reveals that whatever one might think about lowpower on the merits the summary provided there was simply not an objective assessment of the rulemaking and the issues that it raises. For example, the summary described the possible advantages of low power radio but made no mention of the potential drawbacks. The summary also urged readers to file comments in order to "successful[ly]" implement the proposals. xThe provision of information about our activities is an important and laudable goal. In meeting this goal, however, we must be careful not to slant our presentation toward one point of view, lest the Commission become an advocate instead of a neutral decisionmaker. Of all agencies, the FCC should not be attempting to shape and color public opinion on matters before us by the dissemination of unbalanced information. I believe that, if we are to enjoy the appearance of fairness in the rulemaking process, we should not use government funds to promote a particular result prior to even the issuance of an NPRM. Not only does such promotion damage our impartiality, but it puts private interest groups on the other side of the issue in the position of having to expend resources to counter not just the efforts of opposing parties but of the agency as well.  X -x` `  hh*@*h* xIn short, given the potential harmful effects on current licensees and their listeners, the limited benefits of creating a low power radio service, the burdensome regulations placed on the new stations, the new enforcement duties for the Commission, and the availability of alternatives for communication, I do not believe that the pursuit of this proposal comports""DM0*((!?"  X-with our statutory duty to" make available . . a rapid, efficient, Nationwide and worldwide wire and radio communication service." 47 USC section 151 (emphasis added).