Creation of a Low Power Radio Service

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 99-25; FCC 99-6]

Creation of a Low Power Radio Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed Rule Making proposes to establish

rules authorizing the operation of new, low power FM (LPFM) radio

stations. It explores the appropriate technical parameters for such a

service. It also examines potentially conflicting demands for such a

service. In addressing these issues, we are and will remain mindful of

the technical requirements necessary to protect existing radio services

and preserve the excellent technical quality of radio service available

today, as well as any impact on the future introduction of terrestrial

digital audio broadcasting. We hope to receive comment from a wide

range of existing and potential users of the FM spectrum regarding the

nature and extent of different and possibly conflicting demands for

this spectrum (including the development of future terrestrial digital

audio services), and technical analysis to assist us in best resolving

those conflicts for the benefit of the public.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 12, 1999. Reply

comments must be filed on or before May 12, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, Room TW-

A306, SW, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections

contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room C-1804, 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected].

Alternatively, comments may also be filed by using the Commission's

Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), via the Internet to http://

www.fcc.gov.e-file/ecfs.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gordon or Bruce Romano, Policy

and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM,

FCC 99-6, adopted January 28, 1999 and released February 3, 1999. The

full text of this Commission NPRM is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room

TW-A306), 445 12 St. S.W., Washington, D.C. The complete text of this

Notice may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor,

International Transcription Services, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street,

N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037. It is also available on the

Commission's web page at www.fcc.gov//mmb/prd/lpfm.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule Making

I. Introduction

1. By this Notice, we are proposing to establish rules authorizing

the operation of new, low power FM (LPFM) radio stations. In

particular, we are proposing to create two classes of low power radio

service: a 1000-watt primary service and

[[Page 7578]]

a 100-watt secondary service. We also seek comment on whether to

establish a third, ``microradio'' class of low power radio service that

would operate in the range of 1 to 10 watts on a secondary basis. These

proposals are in response to two petitions for rule making and related

comments. We believe that these new LPFM stations would provide a low-

cost means of serving urban communities and neighborhoods, as well as

populations living in smaller rural towns and communities. In creating

these new classes of stations, our goals are to address unmet needs for

community-oriented radio broadcasting, foster opportunities for new

radio broadcast ownership, and promote additional diversity in radio

voices and program services. We are proposing that LPFM stations not be

subject to certain technical rules currently applied to other classes

of radio service. In particular, we believe that current restrictions

on third-adjacent channel operations are not needed for LPFM stations,

and we believe it may be possible to disregard second-adjacent channel

interference for these stations as well. We are also proposing new

technical rules and geographic spacing requirements to ensure that new

LPFM stations do not cause interference to existing full service FM

radio stations. We are wary of any provisions that might limit the

development of future terrestrial digital radio services. The Notice

also addresses related matters such as service rules, ownership issues,

and application processing procedures for LPFM services. We also

welcome commenters to bring to our attention any alternatives or

additions to our proposals that would encourage community participation

and the proliferation of local voices.

II. Service Proposals and Issue Analysis

A. Need for Low Power Radio Service

2. We are concerned that recent consolidation may be having a

significant impact on small broadcasters and potential new entrants

into the radio broadcasting business by driving up station prices,

thereby exacerbating the difficulty of entering the broadcast industry

and of surviving as an independent operator. Additionally, we received

over 13,000 inquiries in the last year from individuals and groups

showing an interest in starting a low power radio station. Furthermore,

hundreds of commenters have urged us to create opportunities for low

power locally oriented radio service.

3. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether a low power radio

service would provide new entrants the ability to add their voices to

the existing mix of political, social, and entertainment programming,

and would address special interests shared by residents of

geographically compact areas. We are not persuaded by opponents who

insist that alternative sources of information and entertainment are

available to dissatisfied speakers and listeners, including acquisition

of an existing frequency; leased time from full power stations; an

internet website; and internet webcasting. Commenters are invited to

address these issues.

B. Spectrum Considerations

4. New Spectrum Allocation. We do not intend to create a low power

radio service on any spectrum beyond that which is currently allocated

for FM use, because to do so would force consumers to purchase new

equipment to gain the benefits of the new service.

5. Channels for Low Power Radio. It does not appear possible to

designate a particular FM frequency or frequencies for one or more low

power services. No single frequency is available that would protect

existing radio service throughout the country, and there does not

appear to be any particular segment 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. We do not propose to authorize low power radio use in

the AM radio band. The interference potential and present congestion in

the AM band would make it a poor choice for a new radio service, and

the propagation characteristics of AM signals could exacerbate the

interference potential of low power stations. We seek comment on these

positions.

6. Noncommercial Designation. 47 CFR 73.501 currently restricts the

use of FM channels 201-220 (88-92 MHz) to noncommercial educational

broadcasting. Pursuant to Sec. 73.503(a) of our rules, 47 CFR 73.503, a

noncommercial educational FM broadcast station will be licensed only to

a nonprofit educational organization and upon showing that the station

will be used for the broadcast of noncommercial educational

programming. Accordingly, absent a change in our rules, only those

noncommercial entities that 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.

7. We seek comment on whether to continue the noncommercial

educational channel reservation with respect to any new LPFM stations

that would have a preclusive effect on the operation of full power

stations in the reserved band, such as the primary low power stations

discussed below, and on whether to extend a parallel reservation to any

secondary low power or microradio stations that we might authorize on

channels 201-220. Commenters should also address whether any or all low

power (and microradio) services should be limited to noncommercial

operation throughout the band, and whether eligibility should

correspondingly be restricted to those who would qualify as

noncommercial licensees under our current rules.

C. Technical Overview of LPFM Services

8. To accommodate the different visions and service demands for low

power radio, we propose two distinct classes of service: (1) a primary

LPFM service class with an ERP limit of 1,000 watts (designated

``LP1000'') and (2) a secondary class with an ERP limit of 100 watts

(designated ``LP100''). We also seek comment on the advisability of

establishing a very low power secondary ``microradio'' service with ERP

limit of one to ten watts.

1. 1000-Watt Primary Service (``LP1000'')

9. We propose LP1000 stations that would operate at a maximum

effective radiated power (``ERP'') of 1000 watts at an antenna height

above average terrain (``HAAT'') of 60 meters (197 feet), and we

propose to protect the maximum 1 mV/m (60 dBu) signal contour of LP1000

stations by minimum separation distances. (60 dBu is the protected

contour for Class A stations, the next highest class of FM station.)

This would provide for a minimum separation of 65 km (40 miles) between

LP1000 stations on the same channel.

10. The proposed power/height combination would produce a 60 dBu

signal contour at a distance of 14.2 kilometers (8.8 miles) from the

station, or approximately one half the distance to the protected 60 dBu

contour of a Class A station using maximum facilities. We ask whether

the type of service envisioned for LP1000 stations could be met with

lower power levels and/or antenna heights. We believe there should also

be a lower ERP limit in the interest of efficient use of the radio

spectrum. Therefore, we propose a minimum ERP of 500 watts (60 dBu

signal at 12 km/7.5 miles). We ask whether different levels would be

more appropriate either in general, or in specific circumstances such

as to meet unique distance separation requirements or in order to

[[Page 7579]]

accommodate a negotiated settlement agreement.

11. Primary stations operating in the FM service are required to

protect all other primary stations. We propose to extend such primary

status to LP1000 stations, as secondary status might discourage

potential new entrants from investing their time and money into this

service, thereby frustrating its purpose.

12. These stations would operate under the majority of the service

rules and obligations applicable to primary stations generally. As

primary stations, LP1000 stations would be required to give and receive

co-channel, first-adjacent channel, and IF interference protection

equivalent to the protection levels other primary FM stations provide

each other. Second- and third-adjacent channel protections are further

discussed below. Likewise, new and modified facilities of existing

classes of FM stations would be required to give co-channel, first-

adjacent channel, and IF interference protection to LP1000 stations

equivalent to the protection that they provide to each other. We

propose that LP1000 stations protect other LP1000 stations on the same

channel and first-adjacent channel, and we invite comment on whether

these stations should have to protect each other's IF frequencies;

i.e., for FM channels separated by 53 or 54 channels.

13. We ask in what manner secondary FM translator and booster

stations should protect LP1000 stations, and whether the current scheme

for translator and booster protection of FM stations should be extended

to protect LP1000 stations, including exiting FM translator and booster

stations. We also ask whether to prohibit the establishment of any

translator or booster stations for use in conjunction with LP1000

stations, given our desire to maximize ownership and service

opportunities for locally owned LPFM stations.

2. 100-Watt Secondary Service (``LP100'')

14. The 100-watt class would be intended to meet the demand of

people who would like to broadcast affordably to communities of

moderate size (whether standing alone in rural areas or as part of a

larger urban area). We propose secondary stations at maximum facilities

of 100 watts ERP and 30 meters (98 feet) HAAT, to produce a 1 mV/m (60

dBu) signal contour at a distance of 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles) from

the station, for economical station construction. We propose a minimum

LP100 ERP of 50 watts (60 dBu signal at 4.8 km/3 miles). We do not

propose a minimum HAAT for LP100 stations. We also propose lesser

operating and service requirements, see Section G., below, 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.

15. We propose that LP100 stations would operate on a secondary

basis with respect to all primary radio stations, including LP1000

stations. They would not be permitted to cause interference within the

protected service contours of existing and future primary stations, nor

would they be protected from present or future interference from these

stations. LP100 stations would provide co-channel, first-adjacent

channel, and IF interference protection to the existing FM station

classes, and co-channel and first-adjacent channel protection to LP1000

stations. We invite comment on whether LP100 stations should also

provide IF protection to LP1000 stations. By proposing secondary status

for LP100 stations, we believe we could authorize more of these

stations with less impact on present and future primary broadcast

services.

16. We seek comment on whether new LP1000 stations should be

required to protect existing co-channel and 1st-adjacent channel LP100

stations. In commenting on this issue, commenters should address the

likely cost differences between LP1000 and LP100 stations, including

costs of station construction and operation. We also seek comment on

whether LP100 stations should be permitted to select channels without

regard to interference received from other stations. Preliminary staff

analysis suggests that many more LP100 stations could operate if these

stations were permitted to apply for channels for which up to 10% of

the area within the 60 dBu contour would be predicted to receive

interference. We invite comment on our technical proposals.

17. We also seek comment on the likely impact of LP100 stations on

FM translator and booster stations, and whether LP100 stations should

be primary with respect to FM translators and boosters, which do not

originate programming. To promote localism, should we prohibit

translator or booster rebroadcasts of the programming of LP100

stations?

3. 1-10 Watt Secondary ``Microradio'' Service

18. We seek comment on the creation of a third class of LPFM

service, intended to allow an individual or group of people with very

limited means to construct a broadcast facility to reach listeners

within the confines of a very localized setting. This service would

operate with a maximum antenna height of 30 meters HAAT (and no minimum

HAAT) and ERP levels in the range of one to ten watts, for a 1 mV/m (60

dBu) signal contour at distances of about 1.8 kilometers to 3.2

kilometers (1-2 miles). We seek comment on whether such facilities

could satisfy some of the demand that has been expressed for very

inexpensive community radio services, particularly in places where

LP100 stations could not be located due to interference concerns or

financial constraints.

19. If we adopt a microradio service, we propose to have an FCC

transmitter certification requirement. We are vitally concerned that

such stations meet transmitter out-of-channel emission limits and other

standards related to interference protection of stations on adjacent

channels.

20. If we were to establish a microradio class, we would envision

it as being secondary to all other FM radio services, including LP100

stations, and thus required to protect all existing and future primary

stations, as well as FM translator and boosters, against co-channel and

1st-adjacent channel interference, and would not receive protection

from these stations. While a single station operating from 1 to 10

watts ERP may not pose a serious threat for 2nd-or 3rd-adjacent channel

or IF interference, where the interference range might extend only a

few hundred feet, we are concerned about uncertain effects of the

combined interference potential of possibly many such stations

operating on the same channel in the same general area, and we seek

comment in this regard. Also, if we adopt a microradio stations class,

should such stations be required to protect each other against

interference?

D. Interference Protection Criteria

21. Minimum Distance Separations Between Stations. We believe

minimum distance separations between stations may be the best practical

means of governing interference to and from low power radio stations,

due to the number of stations we anticipate and the effective

simplicity of such a service. Appendix B of the Notice of Proposed Rule

Making presents several tables which specify minimum distance

separations for the LPFM classes described above, including an

explanation of how these distances were determined. We seek comment on

our proposed use of minimum distance separations and, in particular, on

whether the specific values tabulated in

[[Page 7580]]

Appendix B of the Notice are appropriate for the different types of

interference protections. We invite comment on these issues, including

the effectiveness of alternative approaches for interference

protection.

22. Types of Interference Protection Standards. We propose to

protect stations operating on the same channel or on a 1st-adjacent

channel from interference caused by LPFM facilities, and no commenter

disagrees. At issue is the need to protect stations operating on the

2nd-and 3rd-adjacent channels with respect to LPFM stations. Commenters

supporting LPFM services generally oppose any requirements for 2nd-or

3rd-adjacent channel protections, contending such interference from low

power stations would be, at most, minimal. Other commenters believe

these protections should be retained to prevent interference and/or

protect future digital terrestrial radio service. As noted below and

discussed in greater detail in the Notice, these protections would

limit substantially the number of channels available for low power

radio generally and could preclude altogether the introduction of LPFM

service in mid-sized and large cities.

23. Third-Adjacent Channel Protection. We believe that not

requiring 3rd adjacent protection to or from any of the contemplated

classes of LPFM station would entail, at worst, little risk of

interference to existing radio service. Areas of potential interference

would be very small and occur only in the immediate vicinity of the low

power transmission facility. Also we note that in 1997, we eliminated

the 3rd-adjacent channel protection for full power ``grandfathered

short spaced stations,'' including stations that operate at

substantially higher power levels than LP1000 stations. We welcome

comment on this position.

24. Second-Adjacent Channel Protection Standards. FM radio stations

protect other stations operating on the 2nd-adjacent channel where the

frequency separation is 400 kHz. In the case of grandfathered short-

spaced FM stations, we did not receive any interference complaints as a

result of such modifications during the period in which they were able

to modify facilities without regard to 2nd-and 3rd-adjacent channel

spacing (1964-1987). Similarly, in the noncommercial service, we have

been willing to accept small amounts of potential second-and third-

adjacent channel interference where such interference is

counterbalanced by substantial service gains. Staff analysis suggests

that the current 2nd-adjacent protection standards would be a

substantially larger impediment to LPFM service than the 3rd-adjacent

standard, especially in large and medium-size cities. We ask commenters

to assess the level of risk of increased interference to stations in

existing FM services that would result from permitting LPFM stations to

locate without regard to 2nd-adjacent channel spacing for this service.

The low ERP levels proposed for LPFM stations (especially LP100

stations), together with a tight spectral emission mask for such

stations and our proposed requirement to certify transmitters, should

significantly reduce the potential for harmful interference to existing

service, even if 2nd-adjacent channel interference protections are not

adopted. We also seek comment on the current state of receiver

technology and the ability of receivers to operate satisfactorily in

the absence of 2nd-adjacent channel protection.

25. It is also important to take into consideration the

implications of 2nd-adjacent channel protection for the possible

conversion of existing analog radio services to a digital mode. While

the Commission has yet to formally advance any specific proposals, it

has already expressed its support for a conversion to digital radio.

One specific proposal was recently submitted in a rule making petition

(RM-9395) filed by USA Digital Radio Partners, L.P. (``USADR''), a

terrestrial digital radio proponent of a technology that uses an in-

band-on-channel (``IBOC'') technology, in which an FM radio station's

analog and digital signals would share portions of the same channel. In

the existing radio environment, USADR suggests that 2nd-adjacent

channel interference from current analog FM signals would not pose an

interference threat to its IBOC signal.

26. We are concerned that our understanding of future IBOC systems

is preliminary and that we may not be fully aware of any negative

impact or restrictions that authorization of low power radio service

would have on the transition to a digital IBOC technology for FM

stations, and are particularly interested in the views of digital radio

designers and manufacturers. We note that, as secondary services, LP100

and microradio stations would not be permitted to interfere with future

digital radio stations within their protected service areas.

27. We accordingly seek comment on appropriate interference

standards for the LPFM service. A staff study, attached to the Notice

as Appendix D, demonstrates that if LPFM stations are required to

comply with current interference restrictions, there will be few or no

licenses available in most major markets. This study shows that we

measurably increase the opportunity to engineer in LPFM stations if

third-adjacent channel protection standards are eliminated and

dramatically increase such opportunities if second-adjacent channel

standards are not considered.

E. LPFM Emissions and Bandwidth

28. We believe that the extent to which LPFM stations would degrade

FM radio service on the 2nd-adjacent channel would be considerably

limited by their lower ERP and HAAT levels. In addition, we seek other

technical means for further reducing this interference potential. We

could restrict out-of-channel emissions by establishing a strict

spectral emission mask and/or by reducing the transmission bandwidth

for LPFM stations. We also ask whether a modulation monitor should be

required or, alternatively, whether transmitters should be certified

with built-in modulation limits.

29. Emission Limits. Outside of their assigned channels, the

emissions of FM radio stations must be attenuated to specific levels.

This emission mask ensures that FM broadcast emissions are reasonably

confined within the 200 kHz channel width. The current emission mask

requires a minimum attenuation of 35 dB below the level of the

unmodulated carrier for emissions extending over the second-adjacent

channel. We invite comment on the extent to which an increased emission

attenuation requirement would reduce the potential for 2nd-adjacent

channel interference, assuming no 2nd-adjacent channel spacing

requirements. By how much would this attenuation have to be increased

in this regard? 10 dB? 20 dB? What would be the consequences of a more

restrictive emissions mask for LPFM stations? For example, at what

point would tighter emission limits become cost prohibitive? Based on

what is known about IBOC technology, could a strict emission mask for

LPFM stations significantly reduce the potential for interference to

IBOC signals, presuming we did not impose 2nd-adjacent channel spacing

requirements on LPFM stations?

30. Bandwidth Limits. FM broadcast channels have a bandwidth of 200

kHz, and the frequency modulated (``FM'') signal in each channel swings

in frequency from the center frequency toward the channel edges, with

its radiated power envelope shaped such that virtually all of the

energy of the signal is contained within the channel. The potential for

interference could be further reduced if LPFM stations

[[Page 7581]]

operated with a reduced bandwidth, creating additional frequency

separation to adjacent channels, and we seek comment on its

effectiveness as an alternative means of interference protection,

particularly with regard to 2nd-adjacent channels. What bandwidth

reduction would best serve this purpose?

31. We inquire about the operational effects of reduced bandwidth

on LPFM stations. Would LPFM signals still be received by existing

radios; for example, car radios, home stereo systems, and boom boxes? A

narrowed channel bandwidth could restrict or preclude the use of

baseband subcarriers by LPFM operators. Would prospective LPFM

operators be willing to sacrifice the use of subcarriers in return for

the ability to broadcast a narrow band radio signal? Could the loss of

LPFM subcarrier services such as those typically provided by full power

FM stations be detrimental to the public? We seek comment on the

optimal bandwidth that would strike the right balance between

facilitating a larger number of potential stations and optimizing the

services that could be offered by those stations. Commenters should

address the specific stereophonic sound transmission standards which

would be appropriate for a reduced channel bandwidth. Establishing a

reduced channel bandwidth for LPFM could necessitate the development

and manufacture of new lines of transmitting equipment, at an unknown

cost, and reduce the availability of transmitters for LPFM stations,

especially used transmitters designed for a 200 kHz bandwidth. We seek

comment on these 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.

F. Ownership and Eligibility

32. Local and Cross Ownership. We see the increased opportunity for

entry, enhanced diversity, and new program services as the principal

benefits of a new low power service. Accordingly, we propose not to

permit a person or entity with an attributable interest in a full power

broadcast station to have any ownership interest in any LPFM (or

microradio) station in any market, and to prohibit joint sales

agreements, time brokerage agreements, local marketing or management

agreements, and similar arrangements between full power broadcasters

and low power radio entities. We seek comment on whether we should

permit AM licensees to file applications contingent on the divestiture

of their AM station. We also propose to limit multiple ownership by

prohibiting any individual or entity from owning more than one LPFM (or

microradio) station in the same community. We seek comment on the

appropriate 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 LPFM context.

33. We seek comment on whether the proposed cross-ownership

restriction would unnecessarily prevent individuals and entities with

valuable broadcast experience from contributing to the success of the

service, or is necessary in order to keep the service from being

compromised or subsumed by existing stakeholders. Commenters should

also address the alternative of permitting individuals and entities

with attributable involvement in broadcasting to establish LPFM (or

microradio) stations in communities where they do not have an

attributable interest in a broadcast station. We also seek comment on

whether the cross-ownership restriction should be extended to prevent

ownership by newspapers, cable systems, or other mass media.

34. We are cognizant of the provisions of the Telecommunications

Act of 1996 which permit significant local multiple ownership of

existing full power stations. We tentatively believe, however, that

those provisions would not apply to a service that did not exist in

1996. We also tentatively believe that Congress's intent, to enhance

commercial efficiencies in the radio broadcast industry, does not

sufficiently apply to the new classes of service we are contemplating.

35. National Ownership. We seek comment on whether a limit of five

or ten stations nationally would provide a reasonable opportunity to

attain efficiencies of operation while preserving the availability of

these stations to a wide range of new applicants. We seek comment on

the provisions of the 1996 Act which eliminate national ownership

restrictions for full power radio service.

36. Residency Requirements. We do not propose to establish a local

residency for any LPFM stations, and we do not propose to require that

owners be involved in day-to-day management of the station. We have

long recognized that full power stations require neither local

residency nor integration between ownership and management to assess

and address local needs and interests. Such a restriction would also

frustrate any attempt at achieving certain efficiencies from national

multiple ownership long recognized as beneficial for full-power

stations. Additionally, because the service areas for all stations will

be relatively small, a potential new entrant may hold residency in a

location where no LP1000 channels can be found, so that we might

frustrate one of the significant potentials of LP1000 stations with

such a requirement. Moreover, we expect the nature of the service

provided would attract primarily local or nearby residents in any

event. We also note the probable limitations on our discretion to adopt

an integration requirement. See Bechtel v. FCC, 957 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir.

1992); see also Bechtel v. FCC, 10 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

37. Character Qualifications and Unauthorized Broadcasters. We

propose to apply the same standards for character qualifications

requirements to all LPFM broadcasters as we do to full power

broadcasters. We see no reason to distinguish between LPFM (or

microradio) and other broadcast licensees for this purpose. Commenters

believing otherwise are invited to explain the rationale for any

distinction.

38. We note how this issue relates to the particular issue of

previously and currently unlicensed operators. Unlicensed radio

operators not only violate the longstanding statutory prohibition

against unlicensed broadcasting and our present rules on unlicensed

broadcasting, but they also use equipment of unknown technical

integrity. Such illegal radio transmissions raise a particular concern

because of the potential for harmful interference to authorized radio

operations, including public safety communications and aircraft

frequencies.

39. The Commission has repeatedly urged all unlicensed radio

operators to cease broadcasting. When they have not, we have filed

complaints in federal district courts to shut them down by seeking: (1)

injunctive relief pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 401; (2) seizure and forfeiture

of the radio station equipment pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 510; (3) monetary

forfeitures pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 503; and/or (4) criminal penalties

pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 501. In addition, we have issued cease and desist

orders pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 312 to a number of unlicensed

broadcasters. Nevertheless, despite repeated warnings by Commission

officials and the Commission's successes in federal district court

litigation, some unlicensed broadcasters have persisted in their

unlawful activity.

40. We are concerned with misconduct which demonstrates the

[[Page 7582]]

proclivity of an applicant or licensee to deal truthfully with the

Commission and to comply with our rules and policies. Parties who

persist in unlawful operation after the Commission has taken any of

these enforcement actions could be deemed per se unqualified, and we

seek comment as to the eligibility of such parties for a license in any

new radio service. We seek comment on whether there are circumstances

under which such a party could be considered rehabilitated. The

reliability as licensees of parties who may have illegally operated for

a time but have ceased operation after being advised of an enforcement

action, however, is not necessarily as suspect. We seek comment on the

propriety of accepting as licensees of low power (or microradio)

licenses parties who may have broadcast illegally but have promptly

ceased operation when advised by the Commission to do so, or who

voluntarily cease operations within ten days of the publication of this

summary in the Federal Register.

G. Service Characteristics

41. Local Programming. We seek comment on whether to impose a

minimum local origination requirement on any of the three proposed

classes of LPFM service. We are inclined to give low power (and

microradio) licensees the same discretion as full-power licensees to

determine what mix of local and nonlocal programming will best serve

the community. However, in order to promote new broadcast voices, we

propose that an LPFM station not be permitted to operate as a

translator, retransmitting the programming of a full-power station.

42. Public Interest Programming Requirements. Because they would be

primary stations with potentially substantial coverage areas, we

propose to require LP1000 licensees to adhere to the same Part 73

requirements regarding public interest broadcasting as apply to full

power FM licensees. We propose that an LP1000 licensee's service

obligations pertain to those listeners within its predicted 1 mV/m

signal contour in the same way that full power radio station must serve

the listeners in its community of license. We expect the very nature of

LP100 and microradio stations will ensure that they serve the public.

Therefore, we are disinclined to put the burdens of complying with

specific programming requirements on these licensees, particularly

given the size of their stations and the simplicity we are striving for

in this service. We seek comment on these issues.

43. Other Service Rules. We also request comment on whether LPFM

stations of each class should be subject to the variety of other rules

in Part 73 with which full power stations must comply, including, for

example, the main studio rule (47 CFR 73.1125(a)), public file rule (47

CFR 73.3526, 73.3527), and the periodic ownership reporting

requirements (47 CFR 73.3615). Given the purposes and power levels of

LP1000 stations, we tentatively conclude that LP1000 licensees should

generally meet the Part 73 rules applicable to full power FM stations,

and we seek comment regarding any individual rules that should not be

applied. We would be disinclined to apply these service rules to

microradio stations, and we particularly seek comment with regard to

the rules appropriate for LP100 stations. Where a rule should not apply

to a particular class of service, commenters should analyze the

characteristics of that service that warrant disparate treatment for

the purposes of that rule. We also seek comment on the applicability of

the various political programming rules to each class of low power

service we might adopt, taking into consideration our statutory

mandate.

44. We also propose to treat low power radio stations like full

power stations with respect to protection against exposure to

radiofrequency radiation. We invite comment on this matter, and

specifically on whether and how we should treat LP100 stations

differently from LP1000 stations and, if so, why. We also seek comment

on how our environmental rules should apply to microradio stations, if

this low power radio class is adopted.

45. Operating Hours. Because we intend LP1000 stations to help new

entrants eventually participate in the full power radio industry, and

because these stations may be able to compete with full power stations,

we propose to require them to maintain the same minimum hours of

operation as are required of the lowest class of full-power stations:

generally two thirds of their authorized hours between 6 a.m. and

midnight. With respect to LP100 and microradio stations, however, a

combination of their lesser spectrum utilization, the nature of the

anticipated licensees and their services, and practical enforcement

concerns suggests at this time that a minimum operating schedule should

not be established unless and until experience shows it to be

necessary. Such a determination could also be affected by whether we

designate these as secondary services.

46. Construction, License Terms, Sales, and Renewals. We initially

believe that LP1000 stations should have the same construction period

(three years), and restriction on extensions, as full-power radio

stations. We believe that LP100 and microradio stations should be able

to be constructed in much less time and propose an eighteen-month

construction limit for LP100 stations and a twelve-month limit for

microradio stations. Also, we seek comment on whether to prohibit the

transfer of low power radio construction permits.

47. We propose that LP1000 stations follow the Part 73 rules

applicable to full-power radio stations with regard to the length of

their license terms and renewal procedures. However, we ask if there is

some regard in which their renewal process could be further simplified

appropriate to their status and the nature of their service, consistent

with statutory requirements. If there is little specific regulation for

LP100 and microradio stations, we query how often and how closely we

should actively monitor their performance, within the parameters of our

statutory responsibility (47 U.S.C. 307(a)).

48. We are open to comment on whether LP100 and microradio stations

should be authorized for finite non-renewable periods, such as five or

eight years, so that others may eventually take their turns at the

microphone. Making broadcast outlets available to more speakers is a

fundamental premise of this rule making effort, and we do not expect

that such a limitation would discourage the very modest investment

required to build such a station, particularly if the assets would be

readily transferable. We also seek comment on whether nonrenewable

licenses would contravene statutory provisions providing for a

``renewal expectancy'' for broadcast stations in Sections 309(k)(1) of

the Communications Act of 1934, and the renewal provisions of Section

307(c). We question whether these provisions direct the Commission to

accept renewal applications for all broadcast services, or instead set

the standards for the Commission to follow when it chooses to have

renewable licenses.

49. Emergency Alert System. Since we expect LP1000 facilities to

reach a significant number of people, we propose to treat them like

full power FM stations for the purposes of the Emergency Alert System

(EAS). By contrast, due to their extremely small coverage areas and

probably very small audiences, as well as their limited resources, we

propose that microradio stations not be required to participate in the

EAS. We request comment on these proposals and on how LP100 stations,

with their intermediate size and

[[Page 7583]]

audience reach, should fit into the EAS structure.

50. Station Identification. We ask commenters whether we should

adopt a call sign system that would identify a low power radio station

as such. Commenters should explain whether listeners benefit by having

an LPFM station's status identified through its call sign.

51. Inspection by the Commission and Compliance with its Rules. As

with full power broadcast stations, we propose that all LPFM stations

would be made available for inspection by Commission representatives at

any time during their business hours or at any time they are in

operation. Our rules provide for the Commission to immediately shut

down FM translator and booster stations, which are secondary, if they

cause any actual impermissible interference. We seek comment on whether

similar provisions should apply to LP100 and microradio stations if

authorized as secondary services.

H. Applications

52. Electronic Filing. We propose to require that LPFM and

microradio applications be filed electronically. Without electronic

filing, the Commission lacks the resources to promptly accomplish the

necessary data entry for hundreds or thousands of LPFM (and, possibly,

microradio) applications.

53. We seek information from commenters regarding the experiences

in other services which have adopted electronic filing, particularly

the availability of internet access for electronic filing and the

reliability of the process, and their view of the relevance of that

experience to what we have proposed here and the likely applicants for

LPFM channels.

54. We may be able to develop a system whereby the application

could first be analyzed against existing facilities and, perhaps, even

against previously filed applications, and thus acceptable for filing

based on current data. If we use a window filing system for low power

applications, the system could allow an applicant to avoid submitting a

conflicting application and thus avoid mutual exclusivity and the delay

which resolving such exclusivity might entail. The filing system could

also be designed to assist applicants in determining HAAT or

appropriate derating of permissible transmit power. Parties wishing to

operate LPFM (or microradio) facilities would benefit substantially,

and the public would receive service far earlier than it would

otherwise.

55. Filing Windows/Mutual Exclusivity. We propose to adopt a

processing system with short windows of only a few days each for the

filing of applications. We ask whether this would have advantages over

longer windows and over a first-come, first-serve procedure. We also

request comment on the optimal duration of any window that might be

adopted. We expect that short filing windows would lessen the

occurrence of mutually exclusive applications and speed service to the

public. We are concerned, however, about whether short filing windows

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.

56. We note that electronic filing might give us the capacity to

ascertain the precise sequence in which applications are submitted by

different parties. This would allow us to use a first-come, first-serve

filing system, thereby preventing the accumulation of numerous mutually

exclusive applications. Such a process might avoid imposing a

considerable burden and expense on the Commission and the applicants,

and very greatly speed the initiation of new service. However, such a

system may have costs, limitations, and inequities that might be

avoided by the use of filing windows. Our consideration of this matter

would include our statutory ``obligation in the public interest to

continue to use engineering solutions, negotiation, threshold

qualifications, service regulations, and other means in order to avoid

mutual exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings.'' 47 USC

309(j)(6)(E).

57. Resolving Mutually Exclusive Applications. We tentatively

conclude that auctions would be required if mutually exclusive

applications for commercial LPFM facilities were filed. See 47 USC

309(j). Commenters are welcome to address whether LPFM stations could

be excluded from the auctions requirement of Section 309(j) consistent

with legislative intent.

58. We seek comment on alternatives or modifications to the auction

procedure which could promote localism and community involvement by low

power and microradio stations. The Auctions Order, 63 FR 48615 (Sep.

11, 1998), sets forth new filing requirements for broadcast stations

which replace the previous filing procedures with a specific time

period, or auction window, during which all applicants seeking to

participate in an auction must file their applications. Prior to any

broadcast auction, we will release an initial public notice announcing

an upcoming auction and specifying when the filing window will open and

how long it will remain open. Initially, prospective bidders will

electronically file a short-form application, along with any

engineering data necessary to determine mutual exclusivity in a

particular service. Once the auction is completed, a long-form

application will be filed. We seek comment on the extent to which these

procedures are appropriate for LPFM.

59. Licenses for noncommercial stations are specifically exempted

from auction by the statute. We seek comment on the appropriate

selection methodology for applications for such channels. We have the

authority to resolve mutually exclusive noncommercial broadcast

applications by lottery. In a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in

MM Docket No. 95-31, 63 FR 58358 (Oct. 30, 1998), we explored possible

selection criteria and procedures for noncommercial educational

applicants for full-power FM service, including use of lotteries or of

a point system, and commenters are invited to address the issues raised

in that Further Notice. Commenters should provide a rationale for

disparate treatment of full-power and low power applicants.

III. Administrative Matters

60. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This Notice proposes

the creation of a new, low power FM radio broadcast service.

Implementation of this service (e.g., issuing construction permits,

granting license assignment applications) may involve an information

collection requirement. We estimate that at least several hundred

parties may apply to construct LPFM facilities, and we may in the

future receive numerous license renewal and sales applications. In

addition, depending on the rules ultimately adopted, at least some

licensees may be required to complete several forms that full power

radio broadcasters submit, such as Forms 323 and 323-E (Ownership).

61. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens,

we invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget

(``OMB'') to take this opportunity to comment on the information

collection that might be required, as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments

are due at the same time as other comments on this Notice (i.e., April

12, 1999); OMB comments are also due April 12, 1999. Comments should

address: (a) whether the proposed collection of

[[Page 7584]]

information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of

the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical

utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents, including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In

addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments

on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to

Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room C-1804, 445 12th

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected]

and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street,

N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the internet to [email protected].

62. Filing of Comments and Reply Comments. Pursuant to Sections

1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419,

interested parties may file comments on or before April 12, 1999, and

reply comments on or before May 12, 1999. Comments may be filed using

the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

63. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic

file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>. In

completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full

name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or

rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by

Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments,

commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and should include

the following words in the body of the message, ``get form .'' A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.

64. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and

four copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to the

Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary,

TW-A306, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554. The Mass Media Bureau contacts for this

proceeding are Paul Gordon and Bruce Romano at (202) 418-2120, or

[email protected] or [email protected], or Keith A. Larson at (202) 418-

2600, or [email protected].

65. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their

comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to: Paul

Gordon, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room

2C223, Washington, DC 20554. Such a submission should be on a 3.5 inch

diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using WordPerfect 5.1

for Windows or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied

by a cover letter and should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The

diskette should be clearly labelled with the commenter's name,

proceeding (including the docket number in this case (MM Docket No. 99-

25), type of pleading (comment or reply comment), date of submission,

and the name of the electronic file on the diskette. The label should

also include the following phrase ``Disk Copy--Not an Original.'' Each

diskette should contain only one party's pleadings, preferably in a

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.

66. Comments and reply comments will be available for public

inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center

(Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. It is

anticipated that the Reference Center will be relocated to the

Commission's Portals Building during the late spring or early summer of

1999. Accordingly, and especially after March 1, 1999, interested

parties are advised to contact the FCC Reference Center at (202) 418-

0270 to determine its location. Written comments by the public on the

proposed and/or modified information collections are due on or before

April 12, 1999. Written comments must be submitted by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed and/or modified information

collections on or before April 12, 1999. In addition to filing comments

with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information

collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal

Communications Commission, Room C-1804, 445 12th Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected] and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to [email protected].

67. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding will be treated as a ``permit-

but-disclose'' proceeding subject to the ``permit-but-disclose''

requirements under Section 1.1206(b) of the rules. 47 CFR 1.1206(b), as

revised. Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in

accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda

period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally

prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded

that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of

the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the

subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the

views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 CFR

1.1206(b)(2), as revised. Additional rules pertaining to oral and

written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b).

68. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. With respect to this

Notice, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. 603, is provided below and in

Appendix E of the Notice. Written public comments are requested on the

IRFA, and must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as

comments on the Notice, with a distinct heading designating them as

responses to 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.

69. Additional Information. For additional information on this

proceeding, please contact Keith A. Larson, Office of the Bureau Chief,

Mass Media Bureau at (202) 418-2600, or Bruce Romano or Paul Gordon,

Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau at (202) 418-2120.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),1

the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small

entities by the policies and rules proposed in the present Notice of

Proposed Rule Making. Written public comments are requested on this

IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be

filed by the deadlines for comments on the IRFA provided above in

paragraph 95. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including

this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

[[Page 7585]]

Business Administration. See 5 USC 603(a).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See 5 USC 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has been

amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub.

L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA

is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

(SBREFA).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need For and Objectives of the Proposed Rule Changes

The Commission received petitions for rulemaking asking for the

creation of a low power radio service. Because they raised similar or

identical issues, the Commission coordinated its responses to them. The

Commission released Public Notices of its receipt of three of the

proposals and invited public comment on them.

In response to significant public support, the Commission is now

proposing to create a new, low power FM service. Specifically, it is

proposing two classes of LPFM service, a 1000-watt maximum class

(``LP1000'') and a 100-watt maximum class (``LP100''). We are also

asking whether to create a third class (called ``microradio''), which

would have a maximum power output of one to ten watts. Because of the

predicted lower construction and operational costs of LPFM stations as

opposed to full power facilities, we expect that small entities would

be expected to have few economic obstacles to becoming LPFM licensees.

Therefore, this proposed new service may serve as a vehicle for small

entities and under-represented groups (including women and minorities)

to gain valuable broadcast experience and to add their voices to their

local communities.

Legal Basis

Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice may be found in

Secs. 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47

USC 154(i), 303.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which

the Rules Would Apply

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where

feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be

affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.2 The RFA

generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning

as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small

governmental jurisdiction.'' 3 In addition, the term ``small

business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''

under the Small Business Act.4 A small business concern is

one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant

in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria

established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).5 A

small organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which

is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''

6 Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801

small organizations.7 ``Small governmental jurisdiction''

generally means ``governments of cities, counties, towns, townships,

villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of

less than 50,000.'' 8 As of 1992, there were approximately

85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States.9 This number

includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96

percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000.10 The Census

Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all

governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we

estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are small entities.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ 5 USC 603(b)(3).

\3\ 5 USC 601(6).

\4\ 5 USC 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of

``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. Sec. 632). Pursuant to the

RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies ``unless

an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public

comment, establishes one 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 USC 601(3).

\5\ Small Business Act, 15 USC 632 (1996).

\6\ 5 USC 601(4).

\7\ 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).

\8\ 5 USC 601(5).

\9\ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, ``1992 Census

of Governments.''

\10\ Id.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Small Business Administration defines a radio broadcasting

station that has $5 million or less in annual receipts as a small

business.11 A radio broadcasting station is an establishment

primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the

public.12 Included in this industry are commercial,

religious, educational, and other radio stations.13 The 1992

Census indicates that 96 percent (5,861 of 6,127) radio station

establishments produced less than $5 million in revenue in 1992.

Official Commission records indicate that 11,334 individual radio

stations were operating in 1992.14 As of December 31, 1998,

Commission records indicate that 12,472 radio stations were operating,

of which 7,679 were FM stations.15

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4832.

\12\ 1992 Census, Series UC92-S-1, at Appendix A-9.

\13\ Id. The definition used by the SBA also includes radio

broadcasting stations which also produce radio program materials.

Separate establishments that are primarily engaged in producing

radio program material are classified under another SIC number,

however. Id.

\14\ FCC News Release, No. 31327 (Jan. 13, 1993).

\15\ FCC News Release, ``Broadcast Station Totals as of December

31, 1998'' (Jan. 25, 1999).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed rules, if adopted, would apply to a new category of FM

radio broadcasting service. For the proposed service, the number of

stations that could be licensed without causing unacceptable

interference would depend on the interference criteria that we will

apply to the various classes of low power radio service. Should we

determine that second-and/or third-adjacent channel interference

protection would not be necessary to prevent unacceptable interference

to full power stations, then far more LPFM facilities could be

authorized. The number of stations that we could authorize is also

dependent upon the ratio of LP1000, LP100, and microradio stations for

which we would accept applications. For instance, the greater the

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.

The number of entities that may seek to obtain a low power radio

license is currently unknown. We note, however, that the Commission has

received over 13,000 inquiries in the past year from individuals and

groups interested in operating such a facility. In addition, we expect

that, due to the small size of low power FM stations, small entities

would generally have a greater interest than large ones in acquiring

them.

We seek comment and data regarding the number of small entities

that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

The Commission is proposing to create a new broadcasting service

that may allow hundreds or thousands of small entities to become

broadcast licensees for the first time. This endeavor would require the

collection of information for the purposes of processing applications

for (among other things) initial construction permits, assignments and

transfers, and renewals. Given the power levels and purposes of LP1000

stations (such as their potential to be an entry-level radio service),

we would likely require the same or similar reporting, recordkeeping,

and other compliance requirements as full power radio broadcasters.

However, recognizing that LPFM 100 and microradio licensees may be

small, inexperienced operators who would be serving fairly limited

[[Page 7586]]

areas and audiences, we intend to keep this service as simple as

possible. Accordingly, we intend to keep reporting, recordkeeping, and

other compliance requirements to a minimum. The Notice seeks comment on

these issues, including comment specifically directed toward the

possible effects of such requirements on small entities.

Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small

Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

We are proposing a low power radio service that is divided into

subclasses, defined by their power output (in watts): LP1000 and LP100.

We are also requesting comment on a possible microradio class of 1-10

watts. With this subdivision, small entities would be able to apply for

stations in the class that is most appropriate for their interests and

their ability to construct and operate a station. The Notice asks for

comment on the proposed classes and asks whether an alternative system

would better serve the public interest.

The Notice proposes ownership rules intended to assist small

entities construct or acquire LPFM stations. Parties with attributable

interests in any full power broadcast facilities would not be eligible

to have any ownership interest in any low power radio stations; this

would prevent large group owners (or even large single-station owners)

from constructing and operating LPFM facilities that might otherwise be

available to small entities. The proposed local and national ownership

restrictions of one station per community and five or ten nationwide

similarly would be intended to ensure that ample LPFM stations are

available for small entities. However, the ownership rules would also

prohibit small entity full power broadcasters from acquiring LPFM

licenses.

The Notice does not propose a local residency requirement on LPFM

licensees. Regarding LP1000 stations, it notes that full power stations

require neither local residency nor integration between ownership and

management to assess and address local needs and interests. Such a

restriction would also frustrate any attempt at achieving certain

efficiencies from national multiple ownership long recognized as

beneficial for full-power stations. Additionally, because the service

areas for LP1000 stations will be relatively small, a potential new

entrant might hold residency in a location where no LP1000 channels can

be found, so such a residency requirement might frustrate one of the

significant potentials of LP1000 stations. The same rationale can be

applied to LP100 and microradio stations. Moreover, we expect that the

nature of the service provided by the two smaller classes of stations

would attract primarily local or nearby residents. The Notice seeks

comment on these assumptions and resulting proposal.

The Notice requests comment on whether unlicensed operators, who

have broadcasted illegally, should be considered eligible to hold LPFM

licensees. Although we do not have data on this issue, we presume that

most of these illegal operators are individuals, small groups, or small

entities. As a result, our disposition of this issue could be of great

concern to this relatively small group, should they desire to operate

LPFM stations within the legal framework we are proposing. The Notice

asks whether unlicensed operators have the requisite character

qualifications to be Commission licensees. It also asks whether those

who have promptly ceased operation when advised by the Commission to do

so, or who voluntarily cease operations within ten days of the

publication of the summary of this Notice in the Federal Register,

should be considered differently in this regard.

The Notice also asks whether LPFM stations of each class should be

subject to the variety of other rules in Part 73 with which full power

stations must comply, such as the main studio rule, the public file

rule, and the periodic ownership reporting requirements. Given the

purposes and power levels of LP1000 stations, we tentatively conclude

that LP1000 licensees should generally meet the Part 73 rules

applicable to full power FM stations. However, we seek comment on

whether sufficient useful purpose would be served in applying each rule

to these licensees. The Notice states that we would be disinclined to

apply most of these service rules to microradio stations, and we

particularly seek comment with regard to the rules appropriate for

LP100 stations. Commenters are invited to discuss which existing rules

should apply or what new or modified rules would be more appropriate.

Because of the costs of complying with Commission rules, this issue

could be of importance in determining whether a small entity could

afford to operate an LPFM station.

The Notice proposes a mandatory electronic filing system,

envisioning an internet-based system that would provide substantial

assistance to potential applicants with little technical or legal

background. For example, we may be able to develop a system that could

inform a potential applicant what frequencies are available before an

application is filed. The Commission notes the increasing ease of

accessibility to the internet through private homes, public libraries,

and other publicly accessible places. Without electronic filing, the

Commission lacks the resources to promptly accomplish the necessary

data entry for hundreds or thousands of LPFM (and, possibly,

microradio) applications. A manual filing system might result in

applicants' not learning for many months (at least) whether their

applications were acceptable for filing. As a result, electronic filing

would provide superior service to LPFM applicants and speed service to

the public.

The Commission proposes to adopt a window filing system with short

filing periods of only a few days each, and it asks commenters to

address if that would have advantages over a first-come, first-served

system. One of the Commission's concerns is to reduce the number of

mutually exclusive applications, due to the resulting delay in service

implementation, and because Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, requires mutual exclusivity between or among

commercial broadcast applications to be resolved through auctions.

Also, Section 309(j)(6)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, states that the Commission has the ``obligation, in the public

interest, to continue to use engineering solutions, threshold

qualifications, service regulations, and other means in order to avoid

mutual exclusivity in application and licensing proceedings.'' With

auctions, receiving an LPFM construction permit could become too

expensive for many of the people this service is intended to serve.

With regard to a first-come system, the Notice questions the fairness

of rejecting an application as unacceptable 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.

Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the

Proposed Rules

The initiatives and proposed rules raised in this proceeding do not

overlap, duplicate or conflict with any other rules.

Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the

Proposed Rules

The initiatives and proposed rules raised in this proceeding do not

overlap, duplicate or conflict with any other rules.

[[Page 7587]]

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio Broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 99-3569 Filed 2-12-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P