September 22, 2000

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL K. POWELL
CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART

As I expressed in my separate statement to the original Report and Order,⁽¹⁾ the Item's goal of attempting to give greater voice to narrower interests is generally laudable, and I support that objective. I did, however, also express serious concerns about the potential threat to small stations caused by this new LPFM service. Specifically, I addressed two interrelated issues: 1) signal interference and 2) economic viability.

I concur in today's decision to the extent improvements have been made to address some of the unresolved technical issues. The third channel adjacency complaint procedure will give stations with bona fide interference complaints, the opportunity to have those problems resolved. Furthermore, the expedited review process will ensure that an interference problem does not linger for prolonged periods of time. These changes are a step in the right direction to minimizing the risks caused by signal interference.

I dissent in part from this Order, because the Commission once again fails to consider the economic consequences to small broadcast stations resulting from the introduction of LPFM.