[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7577-7587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3569]


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

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